1 hour ago, deanox said:

Nah I'm happy he said them. Set us something to aim for for once. 

 

I'm trying to tell everyone else to cslm down. That we are on the right track and that it will take time. 

 

Try rereading my post!

I understand that, but I suspect there's a lot more going on too.

10 hours ago, Soidee said:

If you don't think leg speed is an issue you were not watching last weeks game.  The run and spread of Saints made us look like molasses.  The saints players ran fast to open spaces while our guys were 20-30 metres of the pace.  Our team rarely spread, and rarely have the speed to get ahead of opposition players.  It's an issue that cannot be ignored. Take a close look at this weeks game against the Eagles, they will out run us all day.

Did we look slow in the first quarter?

Just was whatching Selling Houses Australia...whats the equivalent for our side?

13 hours ago, Soidee said:

If you don't think leg speed is an issue you were not watching last weeks game.  The run and spread of Saints made us look like molasses.  The saints players ran fast to open spaces while our guys were 20-30 metres of the pace.  Our team rarely spread, and rarely have the speed to get ahead of opposition players.  It's an issue that cannot be ignored. Take a close look at this weeks game against the Eagles, they will out run us all day.

Personally I don't think leg speed is an issue. It is about where you are positioned, where you run too and how you move the ball that determines how fast a team looks.

 

Last week we looked slow because all our players were inside competing for the ball. Every stoppage and contest we had the inside players and we always got sucked into the ball. We were trying to win the footy, but what happened was when the ball came out they were already away. When we won the footy and could get it out it largely wasn't clean, because they could close down our first receiver quickly (they were outside of us remember).

This is why players like Oliver can make us better - because they extract cleanly and other players can stay further out of the contest.

Add to this, for most of the day we played 5 forwards and 7 defenders, but one of the defenders always ran straight into the guts as an extra mid. This extra player didn't stay loose around the stoppage but actually got involved in the contest, and I think that congestion hurt us around the ball. It definitely hurt us once we'd won the ball and we had no one to kick it to.

Spread and pace are two different things.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Personally I don't think leg speed is an issue. It is about where you are positioned, where you run too and how you move the ball that determines how fast a team looks.

 

Last week we looked slow because all our players were inside competing for the ball. Every stoppage and contest we had the inside players and we always got sucked into the ball. We were trying to win the footy, but what happened was when the ball came out they were already away. When we won the footy and could get it out it largely wasn't clean, because they could close down our first receiver quickly (they were outside of us remember).

This is why players like Oliver can make us better - because they extract cleanly and other players can stay further out of the contest.

Add to this, for most of the day we played 5 forwards and 7 defenders, but one of the defenders always ran straight into the guts as an extra mid. This extra player didn't stay loose around the stoppage but actually got involved in the contest, and I think that congestion hurt us around the ball. It definitely hurt us once we'd won the ball and we had no one to kick it to.

Spread and pace are two different things.

Interesting summation

you may well be spot on

still find it amazing that players don't know where to position themselves after training weekly and going to coaches meetings

What do they know??

7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Interesting summation

you may well be spot on

still find it amazing that players don't know where to position themselves after training weekly and going to coaches meetings

What do they know??

To be honest, it used to be worse! But I think it's part of the game plan: win every contest/clearance then handball clear. I don't think the coaches intend to get us sucked inside but they do intend us to make sure the contest is at least neutralised and this is a logical yet unfortunate outcome of what can go wrong. 

 

I honestly think this is why we other teams often clear quickly and in the crowd you think "how can they have free players on both sides of the contest and a spare man in defence?".  

 

I do think that given a bit of age, experience and size our midfield will evolve a bit further such that we can rely on less numbers in their. 

47 minutes ago, deanox said:

To be honest, it used to be worse! But I think it's part of the game plan: win every contest/clearance then handball clear. I don't think the coaches intend to get us sucked inside but they do intend us to make sure the contest is at least neutralised and this is a logical yet unfortunate outcome of what can go wrong. 

 

I honestly think this is why we other teams often clear quickly and in the crowd you think "how can they have free players on both sides of the contest and a spare man in defence?".  

 

I do think that given a bit of age, experience and size our midfield will evolve a bit further such that we can rely on less numbers in their. 

I have often wished this year i could hear what is being said in the Coaches Box. Because on field has looked confusing to the outsider, but it has continued. So there is planning. 

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have often wished this year i could hear what is being said in the Coaches Box. Because on field has looked confusing to the outsider, but it has continued. So there is planning. 

"oh F****************K, Dunny's kicked another torp"

"Holy Cow Dawes cannot take an overhead mark"

"Anyone seen Dean Kent?"

"Who the farrrk is on Nick Reiwoldt?"

Edited July 21, 20169 yr by jnrmac

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

"oh F****************K, Dunny's kicked another torp"

"Holy Cow Dawes cannot take an overhead mark"

"Anyone seen Dean Kent?"

"Who the farrrk is on Nick Reiwoldt?"

An excellent start to Friday 22nd jnr

10 hours ago, deanox said:

Personally I don't think leg speed is an issue. It is about where you are positioned, where you run too and how you move the ball that determines how fast a team looks.

 

Last week we looked slow because all our players were inside competing for the ball. Every stoppage and contest we had the inside players and we always got sucked into the ball. We were trying to win the footy, but what happened was when the ball came out they were already away. When we won the footy and could get it out it largely wasn't clean, because they could close down our first receiver quickly (they were outside of us remember).

This is why players like Oliver can make us better - because they extract cleanly and other players can stay further out of the contest.

Add to this, for most of the day we played 5 forwards and 7 defenders, but one of the defenders always ran straight into the guts as an extra mid. This extra player didn't stay loose around the stoppage but actually got involved in the contest, and I think that congestion hurt us around the ball. It definitely hurt us once we'd won the ball and we had no one to kick it to.

Spread and pace are two different things.

Nailed it. 

We've absolutely improved but we, and this is going to sound odd, still don't win enough. In 2017 we have to win at least 13 games. To do that we need an improved backline and more pace

On 18/07/2016 at 6:19 PM, spirit of norm smith said:

WE OVERUSE HANDBALL TO PLAYERS UNDER PRESSURE.  IT CONTINUES TO BE A FLAW. 

The question that needs to be asked is why do we do this, there are two main reasons which we saw in the St Kilda game which ultimately come down to structure:

1. Too many players get sucked into the contest, therefore there isn't a player on the outside who can receive a kick or handpass and break away in the clear
2. There aren't enough players forward of the ball who can provide a target for a quick kick or handpass

The inclusion of Dawes this week will hopefully help address the second point as for all his faults he at least provides a contest and maintains the structure. Personally, I would prefer to play Pedersen in this role but that's not the point.

I still wish Oliver was in the team because his handpasses are so creative and damaging that he can create opportunities when there seemingly is very little hope.

We picked up so much junk and could not develop players in the past,having said that coaching has a lot to with it. Perhaps we should play the saints in Darwin once a year as a home match,the saints are awful when playing interstate. 

13 minutes ago, ENYAW said:

We picked up so much junk and could not develop players in the past,having said that coaching has a lot to with it. Perhaps we should play the saints in Darwin once a year as a home match,the saints are awful when playing interstate. 

That will upset the fans up there. They are accustomed to having their favoured SA and WA sides play us. They don't care much about us, and the Saints would have the 'Who the Eff'are they appeal.

Edited July 21, 20169 yr by america de cali

america de cali,WA and SA side with be more at an advantage than us because of the climate that will suit them.Personally I hate giving away any home games to interstate.

On 21/07/2016 at 7:57 AM, titan_uranus said:

Pretending the GWS game didn't happen? Or writing it off because Round 1 is some paranormal disturbance whereas Rounds 2 onwards are normality?

No. At the time it was generally considered that they outplayed us but couldn't get the score on the board & we were lucky to win.

They also improved a whole lot over the next few games and played a lot better than they did against us. GWS are very good now, they weren't so hot then. The GWS win didn't have nearly the same impact as Geelong last season.

So no, we haven't beaten anyone of note. Unless you see falling over the line against an inaccurate team who generally outplayed us as somehow adding something important to this season.

Agree, by the way, with all the posters saying we get sucked into the contest. This applies to contested ball, to tackles and to pack marks - on each of these types of occasions we have three against one going for the ball, with two opponents free.

11 minutes ago, Akum said:

No. At the time it was generally considered that they outplayed us but couldn't get the score on the board & we were lucky to win.

They also improved a whole lot over the next few games and played a lot better than they did against us. GWS are very good now, they weren't so hot then. The GWS win didn't have nearly the same impact as Geelong last season.

So no, we haven't beaten anyone of note. Unless you see falling over the line against an inaccurate team who generally outplayed us as somehow adding something important to this season.

Agree, by the way, with all the posters saying we get sucked into the contest. This applies to contested ball, to tackles and to pack marks - on each of these types of occasions we have three against one going for the ball, with two opponents free.

Unlikely, but say WC kicks 10.23 tomorrow and we kick 14.7 does your logic mean we dont celebrate the win because it doesnt count? 

Cant keep claiming that we got a team on a bad day therefore the win doesnt count. If that is the case then Saints got us twice on a bad day therefore those losses doesn't count either! Come to think of it maybe the Essendon one doesnt count either cos we played [censored]. Maybe cull that sydney one cos it was wet, hawks we were coming off Alice, keep doing this we'll be undefeated in no time!. But you right thats a bit unfair I'll cull Suns and Brissy cos they are [censored] teams. Collingwood and Richmond were feeling a bit sad the days we played them they probably should be skipped too. Freo? well they are tanking cross that off. So if I go on we end up 0-0 ready to start a new season!

I agree it didnt have the same impact as the Geelong game, not all wins are equal, but no win is worthless, you cant choose to ignore the fact we beat a top 8 calibre team otherwise that means we can ignore any game we want. 

1 hour ago, Akum said:

No. At the time it was generally considered that they outplayed us but couldn't get the score on the board & we were lucky to win.

They also improved a whole lot over the next few games and played a lot better than they did against us. GWS are very good now, they weren't so hot then. The GWS win didn't have nearly the same impact as Geelong last season.

So no, we haven't beaten anyone of note. Unless you see falling over the line against an inaccurate team who generally outplayed us as somehow adding something important to this season.

Agree, by the way, with all the posters saying we get sucked into the contest. This applies to contested ball, to tackles and to pack marks - on each of these types of occasions we have three against one going for the ball, with two opponents free.

A win is a win. We  took our opportunities against them and  fought out the game. We were rewarded. I think we have gone backwards since then.  Round one might turn out to be the high water mark of the season.

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by america de cali

3 hours ago, ENYAW said:

We picked up so much junk and could not develop players in the past,having said that coaching has a lot to with it. Perhaps we should play the saints in Darwin once a year as a home match,the saints are awful when playing interstate. 

Versus the Dees?

16 hours ago, jnrmac said:

"oh F****************K, Dunny's kicked another torp"

"Holy Cow Dawes cannot take an overhead mark"

"Anyone seen Dean Kent?"

"Who the farrrk is on Nick Reiwoldt?"

I realise you're having a laugh and chuckled myself, but this one has me beat. The word is Dunny's out of favour due to one torp too many. [censored] me has nobody been watching our kick ins for the last 5 years? We must be the worst kick-in team in the comp, consistently. If the kick in doesn't directly result in a turnover, the next one is more likely, or the next one, or the next, and FFS we're still not clear of the 50! [censored] it let's switch. Oh [censored]! At the very worst, he's booting the ball more than one kick from home, and as stated by the coaching team early in the year, if we're going to turn the ball over we want to be doing it as far out from goal as possible. If there's no cheap option, surely this is the default. Doesn't need to go to the centre, just get it long.

I always felt that the biggest strength of a 'supercoach' was getting the best out of their players. It's clearly one of Dunny's strengths, but not acceptable. Why? Can't we use it? Spread the opposition out, make them more accountable further out from goal. Set up for it properly, so if the ball users inside 50 can't get clear it's a real option. If they've punched up the ground your talls knock it on for Jeffy to run onto. Kick it to one side and players on that side start punching forward, while the other side drop back to maintain the zone in case it comes back. Change the game FFS, try something different, innovation is the new black (ok maybe engagement is but whatever).

Kick ins have been killing us for far too long, and I finally thought we'd found an option in Dunn. We appear to have gone well backwards in this area in 2016. I also thought we'd found ourselves a reasonable defender, perhaps he doesn't guard thin air as well as the others.

#bringbackthebarrel

 

1 hour ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I realise you're having a laugh and chuckled myself, but this one has me beat. The word is Dunny's out of favour due to one torp too many. [censored] me has nobody been watching our kick ins for the last 5 years?

 

The reason Dunn is out of favour is he came back after the eight-week break extremely unfit which [censored] Roos off no end. Nothing to do with torps!

9 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I realise you're having a laugh and chuckled myself, but this one has me beat. The word is Dunny's out of favour due to one torp too many. [censored] me has nobody been watching our kick ins for the last 5 years? We must be the worst kick-in team in the comp, consistently. If the kick in doesn't directly result in a turnover, the next one is more likely, or the next one, or the next, and FFS we're still not clear of the 50! [censored] it let's switch. Oh [censored]! At the very worst, he's booting the ball more than one kick from home, and as stated by the coaching team early in the year, if we're going to turn the ball over we want to be doing it as far out from goal as possible. If there's no cheap option, surely this is the default. Doesn't need to go to the centre, just get it long.

I always felt that the biggest strength of a 'supercoach' was getting the best out of their players. It's clearly one of Dunny's strengths, but not acceptable. Why? Can't we use it? Spread the opposition out, make them more accountable further out from goal. Set up for it properly, so if the ball users inside 50 can't get clear it's a real option. If they've punched up the ground your talls knock it on for Jeffy to run onto. Kick it to one side and players on that side start punching forward, while the other side drop back to maintain the zone in case it comes back. Change the game FFS, try something different, innovation is the new black (ok maybe engagement is but whatever).

Kick ins have been killing us for far too long, and I finally thought we'd found an option in Dunn. We appear to have gone well backwards in this area in 2016. I also thought we'd found ourselves a reasonable defender, perhaps he doesn't guard thin air as well as the others.

#bringbackthebarrel

 

Don't disagree with you re the kick ins.

I recall reading after the St K game in rd 6 - where Dunn had a complete shocker and deserved to be dropped - that that coaches box went ballistic when Dunny kicked a torp down the middle and turned the ball over. Not sure if it was against instructions or that he simply didn't signal to his team mates that he was going to do it. 

I also recall that in pre-season he was not selected for a couple of NAB cup games despite being available. I assume this was some kind of disciplinary measure relating to fitness but have no real idea. Just reading between the lines.

I don't really take too much stock in what Roos says publicly but one thing I do believe is that he communicates very well with his players in private. They know exactly where they stand, what they have to do etc. I would be fairly confident that Dunn knows exactly what the situation is and what he needs to do to get selected.

His best year was great for us (only beaten once in a one on one contest) but outside of that he has been mediocre IMO. He hasn't exactly set the world on fire at Casey either...If stats are anything to go by (which clearly they are not for defenders) he has been terrible.

Edited July 23, 20169 yr by jnrmac

On 7/22/2016 at 9:17 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

The question that needs to be asked is why do we do this, there are two main reasons which we saw in the St Kilda game which ultimately come down to structure:

1. Too many players get sucked into the contest, therefore there isn't a player on the outside who can receive a kick or handpass and break away in the clear
2. There aren't enough players forward of the ball who can provide a target for a quick kick or handpass

The inclusion of Dawes this week will hopefully help address the second point as for all his faults he at least provides a contest and maintains the structure. Personally, I would prefer to play Pedersen in this role but that's not the point.

I still wish Oliver was in the team because his handpasses are so creative and damaging that he can create opportunities when there seemingly is very little hope.

I get disillusioned  when flawed players like Dawes & Matt Jones get games because one provides structure & the other outside speed. Trouble is Dawes is a defensive forward who doesn't mark or kick goals. Jones' disposal is poor he sometimes has high possessions but not many meters gained. Also he often runs into trouble because of poor decisions.

On 22/07/2016 at 11:02 AM, Akum said:

No. At the time it was generally considered that they outplayed us but couldn't get the score on the board & we were lucky to win.

They also improved a whole lot over the next few games and played a lot better than they did against us. GWS are very good now, they weren't so hot then. The GWS win didn't have nearly the same impact as Geelong last season.

So no, we haven't beaten anyone of note. Unless you see falling over the line against an inaccurate team who generally outplayed us as somehow adding something important to this season.

Agree, by the way, with all the posters saying we get sucked into the contest. This applies to contested ball, to tackles and to pack marks - on each of these types of occasions we have three against one going for the ball, with two opponents free.

This is just revisionism. It doesn't suit the argument to acknowledge we beat a top 4 contender so the win has to be revised in worth.

Fell over the line? We were 4 goals down at three quarter time but turned it on in the 4th to smash them at the contest and outside, then held off as they raised their game to try to get the lead back. That's not falling over, that's fighting back against a strong side.

We might not have been better than them for 100% of the match but that doesn't mean the performance wasn't strong or the win has no meaning.

People use St Kilda's win over Geelong as a sign they are better than us. Geelong had 2 more scoring shots that day and have played 1000 times better in most of their other games. I suppose that win is meaningless too? 

You can mount an argument that we have not had a great year without having to discount or ignore the GWS game, so I don't see the need and I definitely do not agree.