Long term or even short term (depending on fitness) both Brayshaw and Trengove could both play in the forward line (or as high half forward types) in order for us to end up having some more complete footballers where we need them.  Petracca is another who looks to be a good tackler and chaser and he could be used as a forward as well (or as an alternative to Brayshaw or Trengove)

Asking for all (or most) of our current forwards to all have a defensive mindset on a constant basis is a big ask.  The best teams have got forwards who can hold the ball in their forward lines (as we found out with the Hawks) and we need to aim at having those same sort of standards. 

Hogan & Watts both have low tackle counts and if Dawes can't take marks it's imperative that he is strong in other areas of his game.  Kent & Harmes are sometimes average and often below average when it comes to defensive skills.  Garlett is there to kick the occasional 3 or 4 goals and he is sometimes good defensively.  The mix adds up to a mediocre defensive mindset.

The lack of forward line pressure is a weakness in our game which can be exploited by the better teams ... and that weakness is now more apparent as we've improved and progressed in other areas of our game.  Looking back, it's probably been a weakness in most of our losses this season.  Our midfielders helping out employing a forward press is needed on a constant basis too.

The above players I've mentioned are only examples as we may have other alternatives who can fill a need in the forward line ... vandenBerg is another player who could be used up forward on a rotating basis - when firing he has a decent defensive mindset.  Kennedy is another with claims.

Low tackling numbers and not chasing is often related to other areas of a players defensive game (from a deficiency point of view)

 

 

Whilst not disputing the data presented re tackle counts, of course not all forward (or anywhere) defensive pressure is reflected in tackle numbers.  Hard chasing, corralling, bumping, spoiling etc are also very important but not reflected in those numbers.  I suspect that these areas have also been lacking particularly in our losses.  

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

Whilst not disputing the data presented re tackle counts, of course not all forward (or anywhere) defensive pressure is reflected in tackle numbers.  Hard chasing, corralling, bumping, spoiling etc are also very important but not reflected in those numbers.  I suspect that these areas have also been lacking particularly in our losses.  

Good point. If all the other defensive pressure actions occur then the tackles follow.

The fact that the ball spent more time in our forward 50 this week compared to last was also down to the weather which obviously made it difficult for clean ball handling and kicking. Even for Hawthorn. 

So I'm not sure one could argue that we were 'better' in applying forward 50 pressure this week to last when the games were played in completely different conditions.

 

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

The fact that the ball spent more time in our forward 50 this week compared to last was also down to the weather which obviously made it difficult for clean ball handling and kicking. Even for Hawthorn. 

So I'm not sure one could argue that we were 'better' in applying forward 50 pressure this week to last when the games were played in completely different conditions.

 

Plus, there was an obvious tactic of us flooding the forward line on Saturday, that's a pretty clear indication that Roos knows the forward pressure hasn't been up to scratch.

 

Hogan gets a free ride on Demonland for his poor defensive efforts IMO. He is never going to be as good at applying pressure as Buddy Franklin or Waite, but he needs to look at the effort that players like Petrie and Josh Kennedy give when the opposition have the ball.

Forward line pressure only works when everyone contributes.

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

Hogan gets a free ride on Demonland for his poor defensive efforts IMO. He is never going to be as good at applying pressure as Buddy Franklin or Waite, but he needs to look at the effort that players like Petrie and Josh Kennedy give when the opposition have the ball.

Forward line pressure only works when everyone contributes.

Doesn't get a free ride from everyone. A fair few, myself included, have already mentioned how poor his pressure is as well as never giving a second effort in a contest.

Averages 1 tackle a game.

 

Our forward line is as much to blame as any line as to why we have been getting opened up out the back. Yes our backs have been poor in letting opponents get goalside but those coast to coast goals normally start in our forward line due to our lack of pressure on key ball carriers.

Hawthorn gave us a lesson in workrate and forward pressure and that was the difference in the end:

Tackle Numbers (forwards)

Watts 0                    Puopolo 10                   

Hogan 0                  Rioli 11

Dawes 1                 Gunston 5

Kent 3                     Breust 5

vandenBerg 3        Stewart 9

Garlett 3                 Sicily 2

Petracca 6              O'Brien 3

16                            45

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Hogan gets a free ride on Demonland for his poor defensive efforts IMO. He is never going to be as good at applying pressure as Buddy Franklin or Waite, but he needs to look at the effort that players like Petrie and Josh Kennedy give when the opposition have the ball.

Forward line pressure only works when everyone contributes.

Good point Tony.

 

3 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Hogan gets a free ride on Demonland for his poor defensive efforts IMO. He is never going to be as good at applying pressure as Buddy Franklin or Waite, but he needs to look at the effort that players like Petrie and Josh Kennedy give when the opposition have the ball.

Forward line pressure only works when everyone contributes.

He is starting to become horribly relieant on early influence. If he gets an early goal or sets one or 2 up his pressure seems to be up for the game but if he doesnt have any early impact he just starts to get frustrated and loses sight on the rest of his job. Something I hope can be trained out of him with experiance. 

1 hour ago, Ash82 said:

Our forward line is as much to blame as any line as to why we have been getting opened up out the back. Yes our backs have been poor in letting opponents get goalside but those coast to coast goals normally start in our forward line due to our lack of pressure on key ball carriers.

Hawthorn gave us a lesson in workrate and forward pressure and that was the difference in the end:

Tackle Numbers (forwards)

Watts 0                    Puopolo 10                   

Hogan 0                  Rioli 11

Dawes 1                 Gunston 5

Kent 3                     Breust 5

vandenBerg 3        Stewart 9

Garlett 3                 Sicily 2

Petracca 6              O'Brien 3

16                            45

Pretty damning statistics. Would also be interested in seeing the figures for pressure acts for each player... hope our lads were paying attention on Saturday.

On 6/5/2016 at 9:24 AM, thevil1 said:

58 to 50 inside 50's

26 to 8 inside 50 tackles

Look at the heat maps, they held the ball in a lot better than us, we need to improve greatly on this cause we did have our chances going forward. 

interesting stat. But I think the Hawks defence won the game for them.  They are calm and hit targets and their mids provide options. if you do this, it is hard for fwds to lay tackles.  on the other hand if your defender plays a bad handball that puts a defender under pressure that will lead to 3-4 tackles in a row.

still think our fwds could do better with pressure but the main issue is ball use at the back and mid spreading

5 minutes ago, DubDee said:

interesting stat. But I think the Hawks defence won the game for them.  They are calm and hit targets and their mids provide options. if you do this, it is hard for fwds to lay tackles.  on the other hand if your defender plays a bad handball that puts a defender under pressure that will lead to 3-4 tackles in a row.

still think our fwds could do better with pressure but the main issue is ball use at the back and mid spreading

Be nice to have someone the caliber of Simpson 

They had twice as many marks as us.  Mark = no tackle.  When we allowed disputed ball through poor kicking or marking skills, they could tackle.  When they passed cleanly between backs, we had less opportunities.  They were cleaner and better organised in their back half, which reduced the possibility of tackles in our forward half.  Thought we created lots of contests in their forward 50 in the middle part of the game. spoiling marks really well.  Lots of disputed ball and lots of tackle opportunities in their front 50.

Also, Rioli got about 8 tackles in 10 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter, I think, playing on the ball - so these stats may be skewed by that as well.

However, it is a disgraceful stat for the forward group however you slice it up...

At the start of the year I though he was little hope with Garlett, Kent, Kennedy and Harmes but given the forward half pressure problems do we think JKH might be in for a call up after a few weeks building fitness in the 2s? He's young and prob needs untill atleast after the bye building match fitness but he might be able to put some heat on the blokes like Kent and Harmes who dont have any serious pressure from below

On Monday, June 06, 2016 at 0:57 PM, DubDee said:

interesting stat. But I think the Hawks defence won the game for them.  They are calm and hit targets and their mids provide options. if you do this, it is hard for fwds to lay tackles.  on the other hand if your defender plays a bad handball that puts a defender under pressure that will lead to 3-4 tackles in a row.

still think our fwds could do better with pressure but the main issue is ball use at the back and mid spreading

 

On Monday, June 06, 2016 at 1:07 PM, buck_nekkid said:

They had twice as many marks as us.  Mark = no tackle.  When we allowed disputed ball through poor kicking or marking skills, they could tackle.  When they passed cleanly between backs, we had less opportunities.  They were cleaner and better organised in their back half, which reduced the possibility of tackles in our forward half.  Thought we created lots of contests in their forward 50 in the middle part of the game. spoiling marks really well.  Lots of disputed ball and lots of tackle opportunities in their front 50.

Also, Rioli got about 8 tackles in 10 minutes at the start of the 4th quarter, I think, playing on the ball - so these stats may be skewed by that as well.

However, it is a disgraceful stat for the forward group however you slice it up...

Fair points, agree with most of that. I think the hawks played to the conditions better than us also, kicking it off the ground instead of trying to pick it up under pressure & getting it in forward long. I thought we struggled to adjust in many respects, going for too many short kicks/handballs in slippery conditions which created more pressure opportunities for them as players fumbled due to the weather. Trenners & Vince really stood out in this regard for mine, keeping it simple & going long instead of trying to pinpoint passes. We feilded a young team mostly so hopefully they learnt a lot from that hitout about wet weather afl footy. They were definitely cleaner coming out of defense also but it was a good effort from our boys overall, a couple more contributions from Garlett & a few others would have got us a memorable victory....

Forward pressure isn't only tackling.  Chasing and harassing defenders when they're working the ball out of defence puts pressure on their disposal which leads to turnovers.

2 hours ago, DemonWA said:

Forward pressure isn't only tackling.  Chasing and harassing defenders when they're working the ball out of defence puts pressure on their disposal which leads to turnovers.

Yes and no one does it better than the Dorks and it can be crucial to the outcome of games and no you don't need super talent to do it. So why don't some teams who don't do it, do more of it? This is about MFC by the way. 

On 6/6/2016 at 11:50 AM, Ash82 said:

Our forward line is as much to blame as any line as to why we have been getting opened up out the back. Yes our backs have been poor in letting opponents get goalside but those coast to coast goals normally start in our forward line due to our lack of pressure on key ball carriers.

Hawthorn gave us a lesson in workrate and forward pressure and that was the difference in the end:

Tackle Numbers (forwards)

Watts 0                    Puopolo 10                   

Hogan 0                  Rioli 11

Dawes 1                 Gunston 5

Kent 3                     Breust 5

vandenBerg 3        Stewart 9

Garlett 3                 Sicily 2

Petracca 6              O'Brien 3

16                            45parative

Christian the only one on Tracc there

16 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes and no one does it better than the Dorks and it can be crucial to the outcome of games and no you don't need super talent to do it. So why don't some teams who don't do it, do more of it? This is about MFC by the way. 

I know Roos is ultimately responsible but isn't the line coach (McPherson) the one who's supposed to be driving this side through development and culture?

11 rounds in and we are presently ranked 13th in scoring chains (rebounds) that commence inside forward 50 at the moment. Forward pressure is only one part but that stat commences in our 50.