9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The problem isn't with our backline - when we've lost its our midfield and half forwards that are the problem.

The mids  not help the cause at times good Dr but even his highness has admitted the backs have not been playing tight enough. The goals against you us what loses the game. Our defence is a staggeringly mere 35 pts better than Freo's !!!

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

The mids  not help the cause at times good Dr but even his highness has admitted the backs have not been playing tight enough. The goals against you us what loses the game. Our defence is a staggeringly mere 35 pts better than Freo's !!!

When the ball is coming out of our forward half at lightning pace because the half forwards and mids are not applying enough pressure, creating turnovers with poor disposal and losing the contested footy our backs have no hope. Maybe they should be playing a little tighter but even going man on man you will struggle to stop pinpoint delivery if it is coming down to an open forward line at speed with little to no pressure. 

13 minutes ago, Chris said:

Agree with most of it but disagree that the players aren't worth persevering with our aren't good enough to do what we need. Most of those listed either are good enough now or don't have the experience to be consistent in application. To complain that players that have played less than 10 games are hot and cold is a little harsh. They need to be given time. 

If come the end of next year we are still at the same point then I would agree with you, not yet though. 

Chris it's about timelines for mine. If you haven't the cattle.. or enough games in legs to execute a plan, hold off. The club were patient as they instilled the knowledge etc into the game and players but seem to have gone early with too much with too little. 

Premature expectations !

15 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

 

Ah...going nowhere  fast 

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Chris it's about timelines for mine. If you haven't the cattle.. or enough games in legs to execute a plan, hold off. The club were patient as they instilled the knowledge etc into the game and players but seem to have gone early with too much with too little. 

Premature expectations !

That may well be the case, I for one am glad they are playing attacking fun footy and not just the clamping down game we have seen for the last few years. We have enough of this up to pace in my view to bring in this game plan, it will take time to bed down though. 

23 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Ah...going nowhere  fast 

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM, goodoil said:

I don't have a problem per se with zone defenise - what I find strange is signing Dunn to a long-term deal (not misaning to knock the player) when he is not suited to being a zone defender and they arent using him and losing Howe who is essentially everything you want in a zone defender

A fantastic post and point goodoil. Intercept marking and kicking efficiency to our advantage after that mark, along with quick ball movement through a press, Is exactly what coaches are seeking In today's defensive line ups. No doubt this Is partly why Bucks and his list ppl decided to go after Howe.

While he Is far from being a great option at all of those skills I would argue he was a better one than say a Garland or a  Dunn for Intercept marking. I realise we got Ben Ken (and picks 29,50 from Power) with the trade but he hasnt exactly set the world on fire either....yet. The game appears to have moved beyond the latter two players now so not sure what our thinking was when re-signing.

Unfortunately though you also only want a player If he wants to be at the club. Not sure Howe was fully committed In his last year with us and had already moved on.

13 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Agreed.

It's also about how the opposition gets the ball back, and where.

We are committing far too many turnovers across half-forward which gives our opposition the best possible chance to rebound straight back through a zone which isn't properly formed.

At our best, we don't turn it over across half forward, we go inside 50 and we either score, or we lock it in, force repeat contests, prevent easy rebounds. That happens when our forwards and, in particular, our half-forwards are "on". By locking it in, pressuring the ball carrier coming out, our zone is then well-set to get the ball back at half-forward/wing and rinse/repeat.

Instead, by turning it over across half-forward or, just as bad, by applying no pressure when we get it inside 50, we let the ball pivot and come straight back out.

It's no surprise, then, that when we play poorly we almost always see bad games from Harmes, Kent, Kennedy and Garlett.

Solid stuff Mr T

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Agree with most of it but disagree that the players aren't worth persevering with our aren't good enough to do what we need. Moont of those listed either are good enough now or don't have the experience to be consistent in application. To complain that players that have played less than 10 games are hot and cold is a little harsh. They need to be given time. 

If come the end of next year we are still at the same point then I would agree with you, not yet though. 

I dont think that's harsh so much as reality Chris. Personally I believe the next draft needs to be more weighted towardz getting some more experience Into the backline but also the ability to Intercept mark, transistion quickly and hit targets by foot.

Not asking for much eh

Nearly forgot one very important requirement in last post. Leadership/character also needed in defense with any future recruit of experienced player. 

This is why I believe H is a must selection in this team if/when fit. Might not be the greatest player but he is the most experienced defender we have going atmand a premiership one. He knows more than most how to organise and rally and where players shld be at any given time etc. Invaluable and something that cant be measured with stats.

6 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I dont think that's harsh so much as reality Chris. Personally I believe the next draft needs to be more weighted towardz getting some more experience Into the backline but also the ability to Intercept mark, transistion quickly and hit targets by foot.

Not asking for much eh

I think you're on the scent here Rusty.  To suggest that some players being raw, or not high on games etc  are letting the 'plan' down is not so much a broadside to them but to the  expectancy that they could.  If we just look at the defence in isolation for a moment then the style suits players with great peripheral vision and good perception. Those that can judge well the space to be guarded and to do it tightly . There's not a lot of margin for error in doing this ( that in itself concerns me ) as theres a lot of space on a footy field.

You need those 5 or 6 key players down there to be all working in unison to pull it off. . We just dont have those players yet. Some are playing the wrong role, some are past it, some arent on the paddock, some are too inexperienced.  All in all and for those various reasons we dont have the capacity to pull it off. So why do we suppose they can ?

 

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

I think you're on the scent here Rusty.  To suggest that some players being raw, or not high on games etc  are letting the 'plan' down is not so much a broadside to them but to the  expectancy that they could.  If we just look at the defence in isolation for a moment then the style suits players with great peripheral vision and good perception. Those that can judge well the space to be guarded and to do it tightly . There's not a lot of margin for error in doing this ( that in itself concerns me ) as theres a lot of space on a footy field.

You need those 5 or 6 key players down there to be all working in unison to pull it off. . We just dont have those players yet. Some are playing the wrong role, some are past it, some arent on the paddock, some are too inexperienced.  All in all and for those various reasons we dont have the capacity to pull it off. So why do we suppose they can ?

 

I assume our "future" back 6 would be seen as 

Jetta TMac Hunt

Wagner OMac Salem 

Just look at how inexperienced they are.

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I assume our "futurin" back 6 would be seen as 

Jetta TMac Hunt

Wagner OMac Salem 

Just look at how inexperienced they are.

Thats why we need an Injection of experience Dr. I would be throwing H In there for now whenever he's available, not Omac...too raw.

Would love to get my hands on Harry Taylor!

I just think we've gone from Roos all out defence to Goodwins all out attack.
Both appear to be failing ..... Badly.

11 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Thats why we need an Injection of experience Dr. I would be throwing H In there for now whenever he's available, not Omac...too raw.

Would love to get my hands on Harry Taylor!

Lumumba would be in but I think he's sitting out with concussion. I agree we need some experience, I don't know why Dunn isn't in. But even with he or Lumumba in to replace OMac it won't change the fact that we are falling down across half forward and midfield which allows the opposition to get the ball down quickly and score. You can change personnel or gamestyle but unless we decide to flood back it won't make a difference.

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I assume our "future" back 6 would be seen as 

Jetta TMac Hunt

Wagner OMac Salem 

Just look at how inexperienced they are.

do i dare say ...when you send boys to fight a mans war...someones going to get hurt !!

Again I go to the idea of timing.  tbh  if it were mine to decide id be trialing and honing all of this in the magoos. Get it as second nature there where theres some lattitude etc.   Then when you have the "plan" ingrained" its then about tempo in the Seniors.  We seem to be going from A to B  to C to F.   Our defence seems well and truly F'd right at present

35 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I dont think that's harsh so much as reality Chris. Personally I believe the next draft needs to be more weighted towardz getting some more experience Into the backline but also the ability to Intercept mark, transistion quickly and hit targets by foot.

Not asking for much eh

It is reality that they are hot and cold, so are all inexperienced players, that is why it is harsh as it is not unexpected. Not sure how you plan to draft in experienced either unless you are talking the trade period

19 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Thats why we need an Injection of experience Dr. I would be throwing H In there for now whenever he's available, not Omac...too raw.

Would love to get my hands on Harry Taylor!

I would be very surprised if H came back through the VFL. If fit he plays for exactly the reasons you say. Not many more options in the mean time though other then teaching the youngsters. Dunn is the other who I think should be playing, has me puzzled why he isn't. 

38 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I think ifou're inn tine scent here Rusty. ith suggest that some players bei. ng raw, or not high on games etc  are letting the 'plan' down is not so much a broadside to them but to the  expectancy that they could.  If we just look at the defence in isolation for a moment then the style suits players with great peripheral vision and good perception. Those that can judge well the space to be guarded and to do it tightly . There's not a lot of margin for error in doing this ( that in itself concerns me ) as theres a lot of space on a footy field.

You need those 5 or 6 key players down there to be all working in unison to pull it off. . We just dont have those players yet. Some are playing the wrong role, some are past it, some arent on the paddock, some are too inexperienced.  All in all and for those various reasons we dont have the capacity to pull it off. So why do we suppose they can ?

 

Whenever I see the likes of a Garland/Omac (Or worse...BOTH!) In line up In Defence BZ I shudder at what the likely result might be down back.

In the short term we need to see Pedo / H back In for Garlo & Omac If/when fit.

As others have said we will still bleed If the team defence Is failing up forward / mid field but at least these guys can read play and Intercept a little better (Pedo) and H attacks like a mad pony when he gets It. Not the greatest one on one though. Still a better option IMO than the former two though.

The pressure/organisation still needs to happen up forward/mid field also as  others have said If our D Is to have a fair chance to do their thing. 

38 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Whenever I see the likes of a Garland/Omac (Or worse...BOTH!) In line up In Defence BZ I shudder at what the likely result might be down back.

In the short term we need to see Pedo / H back In for Garlo & Omac If/when fit.

As others have said we will still bleed If the team defence Is failing up forward / mid field but at least these guys can read play and Intercept a little better (Pedo) and H attacks like a mad pony when he gets It. Not the greatest one on one though. Still a better option IMO than the former two though.

The pressure/organisation still needs to happen up forward/mid field also as  others have said If our D Is to have a fair chance to do their thing. 

Why complain about the defence of the youngsters, who still need to learn, when your solution is bringing in players who aren't playing due to injury? If they weren't injured they would be playing and we may not have the issues we are. Seems you are putting all the failings at the feet of the youngsters who between them would be lucky to rustle up 30 games!

56 minutes ago, Chris said:

Why complain about the defence of the youngsters, who still need to learn, when your solution is bringing in players who aren't playing due to injury? If they weren't injured they would be playing and we may not have the issues we are. Seems you are putting all the failings at the feet of the youngsters who between them would be lucky to rustle up 30 games!

Not only that but I don't think it would have mattered if we had H/Pedersen/Frost/Grimes/whoever in place of OMac/Garland/Hunt/Wagner on Saturday because the ball was rebounding out of our forward half too quickly under no pressure. Personnel changes in defense wouldn't have altered this - what may have is pressure from Garlett, Kent, Kennedy, Harmes etc to stop the ball coming out of our forward line so quickly.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't know why Dunn isn't in. 

Because he isn't very good.

28 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Because he isn't very good.

then he'd fit right in 

Hi

as usual I find the tactical discussions wonderful.

I came across this article from Fox Footy discussing the Eagles defensive zoning of last year. It appears to be a good explanation that I can understand. Would be very interested in comments on the similarities/differences to the zone defence that Melbourne is trying to implement.

The illustration which shows five Richmond players goal side of the defensive zone is of particular interest.

Thanks

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/weagles-web-fox-footys-gerard-healy-breaks-down-west-coasts-defensive-tactics/news-story/3f7bc9e8ce8bc81f09e977cda243a56d

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hi

as usual I find the tactical discussions wonderful.

I came across this article from Fox Footy discussing the Eagles defensive zoning of last year. It appears to be a good explanation that I can understand. Would be very interested in comments on the similarities/differences to the zone defence that Melbourne is trying to implement.

The illustration which shows five Richmond players goal side of the defensive zone is of particular interest.

Thanks

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/weagles-web-fox-footys-gerard-healy-breaks-down-west-coasts-defensive-tactics/news-story/3f7bc9e8ce8bc81f09e977cda243a56d

Its a very good explanation  and a much better hybrid than our diamond.   The Weagles will grapple and interface their opponents as required...we seem to line up the runway for them...chalk and cheese