Structure

[Diamond_Jim 12,629]

6 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Aaron Davey was great at this.  I vividly remember a WCE game at the G - he hovered 10 metres in front of the kick off line.  The WCE guy tried once or twice to chip and run only to be run down.  He was terrified to do it again for the rest of the match.   We should try again with our fastest chaser camped there to pressure the kicker-in.

As the kick in is a major weapon to breaking the zone and a quick score at the other end the concept of "harassing" the kicker is certainly something to consider.

Aaron was of course the consummate defensive forward. Who can forget those early years when he would run down a defender who would react with complete surprise.. He pioneered the role ....such memories.

[Blind_turn 43]

Just in relation to the Brayshaw kick across to Oscar I think it was more a case of Oscar being that ten metres too far away from Brayshaw rather than Brayshaws decision or execution.

I'd don't want to turn this specifically into another debate how Oscar is going, but I think as spectators we always tend to blame the player with ball but often the difference with the very good sides and the not so good is the players up the ground or in this case across the ground don't give their team mate with the ball a relatively easy option.

If we are still trying to educate our players I'd be surprised if the coaches in the review session point out how a slight repositioning of Oscar in this case would have avoided a costly turnover.

[leehow 303]

Something I've noticed with our point kick-ins, is that we are extremely slow to get the ball back into play. It may be something they are told to do to give the players a bit of a breather, but we often just stroll over to the ball bag to grab a new ball, then stroll back to the goal square to kick in. I thought our kick-ins were generally a lot better on the weekend, especially the 2-3 that Vince kicked to T-Mac about 40 metres out from goal, but just thought that with a bit more speed sometimes we could catch the opposition before they set up.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

3 minutes ago, Inandunder said:

Just in relation to the Brayshaw kick across to Oscar I think it was more a case of Oscar being that ten metres too far away from Brayshaw rather than Brayshaws decision or execution.

I'd don't want to turn this specifically into another debate how Oscar is going, but I think as spectators we always tend to blame the player with ball but often the difference with the very good sides and the not so good is the players up the ground or in this case across the ground don't give their team mate with the ball a relatively easy option.

If we are still trying to educate our players I'd be surprised if the coaches in the review session point out how a slight repositioning of Oscar in this case would have avoided a costly turnover.

I do agree that sometimes the reciever is to blame for a turnover but not in this case. The zone is set up with 2 players who are there to stand on the left and right side of the centre circle. That way we have both wings covered in the event of a turnover. If the players wish to switch they should either kick to closer player (in this case they were manned up) or kick far to the advantage of the far player. Nothing wrong at all with Oscars posiotioning it was poor delivery. A 10m shorter kick for him to run onto or a kick 10m further backwards would have been fine. I know people seem to like blaming Oscar for things but there is no way to blame him for this, it was all on Brayshaw. Not a knock on him as a player he made a mistake, he wont do it again any time soon. 

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

7 minutes ago, leehow said:

Something I've noticed with our point kick-ins, is that we are extremely slow to get the ball back into play. It may be something they are told to do to give the players a bit of a breather, but we often just stroll over to the ball bag to grab a new ball, then stroll back to the goal square to kick in. I thought our kick-ins were generally a lot better on the weekend, especially the 2-3 that Vince kicked to T-Mac about 40 metres out from goal, but just thought that with a bit more speed sometimes we could catch the opposition before they set up.

Probably because we don't want Frost, T Mc, Oscar, Hunt or Harmes ie. 5/7 of our backline doing the kick ins. Even Jetta isn't a great option. So a lot of the time it's waiting for Vince to get there. In time more of the backline (including some of those guys) will be capable of taking the kick ins.

Edit: I think we scored 2 goals from kick ins on the weekend and the Hawks had only conceded a few goals from kick ins all season, so we got some of them right!

Edited August 9, 2016 by DeeSpencer

[Blind_turn 43]

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I do agree that sometimes the reciever is to blame for a turnover but not in this case. The zone is set up with 2 players who are there to stand on the left and right side of the centre circle. That way we have both wings covered in the event of a turnover. If the players wish to switch they should either kick to closer player (in this case they were manned up) or kick far to the advantage of the far player. Nothing wrong at all with Oscars posiotioning it was poor delivery. A 10m shorter kick for him to run onto or a kick 10m further backwards would have been fine. I know people seem to like blaming Oscar for things but there is no way to blame him for this, it was all on Brayshaw. Not a knock on him as a player he made a mistake, he wont do it again any time soon. 

Ok, fair point. I'll watch the replay again - it's becoming my favourite pass time.

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I do agree that sometimes the reciever is to blame for a turnover but not in this case. The zone is set up with 2 players who are there to stand on the left and right side of the centre circle. That way we have both wings covered in the event of a turnover. If the players wish to switch they should either kick to closer player (in this case they were manned up) or kick far to the advantage of the far player. Nothing wrong at all with Oscars posiotioning it was poor delivery. A 10m shorter kick for him to run onto or a kick 10m further backwards would have been fine. I know people seem to like blaming Oscar for things but there is no way to blame him for this, it was all on Brayshaw. Not a knock on him as a player he made a mistake, he wont do it again any time soon. 

Not attacking the ball was Oscar's mistake. He stood and waited for it and didn't help the team by putting his body on the line. 

Bad kick from Brayshaw, too much hang time, but Oscar could've bailed him out.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The worst thing about the Brayshaw kick was that it was simply unnecessary.  We were in an attacking position so there was no need to switch the play as he could have just as easily put the ball into our forward line.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

Not attacking the ball was Oscar's mistake. He stood and waited for it and didn't help the team by putting his body on the line. 

Bad kick from Brayshaw, too much hang time, but Oscar could've bailed him out.

I would have liked to see him step in and force contact so Gunston didnt have a free run. Either way an Oscar success there would have required a huge failure on Gunston's part, that kind of intercept is as easy as they come.

[Little Goffy 14,661]

4 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I would have liked to see him step in and force contact so Gunston didnt have a free run. Either way an Oscar success there would have required a huge failure on Gunston's part, that kind of intercept is as easy as they come.

Even giving away a free would've been effective in the circumstances. Three seconds is a long time in football, especially at CHF with an open 50.

But I'll cut the kid some slack (both Brayshaw and Oscar), and call it a 'teachable moment'.

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I would have liked to see him step in and force contact so Gunston didnt have a free run. Either way an Oscar success there would have required a huge failure on Gunston's part, that kind of intercept is as easy as they come.

If Oscar attacked the ball with full conviction the best result would be a spoil and hopefully we clear it, the probable result would've been Gunston marks but gets taken to ground or held up. A good learning situation for him.

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The worst thing about the Brayshaw kick was that it was simply unnecessary.  We were in an attacking position so there was no need to switch the play as he could have just as easily put the ball into our forward line.

The worst thing was probably the lack of 50m penalty! (If my memory is right).

He probably was forward enough to pump it in, but the game plan of the day seemed to be to deny the Hawks the ball and not bomb it and get caught on the counter attack. Especially after bombing it in so much against the Eagles I can understand why Brayshaw (and several others) wanted to share the ball around.

[Akum 2,660]

8 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Even giving away a free would've been effective in the circumstances. Three seconds is a long time in football, especially at CHF with an open 50.

But I'll cut the kid some slack (both Brayshaw and Oscar), and call it a 'teachable moment'.

This is my point, going on from a post about the need to switch it quickly at times. If that had been a quick switch it would have been fine.

[Yes, maybe Oscar could have caused a "professional" free, but I don't think he saw Gunston coming until the last second.]

On another point, when's the last time you can remember a game where 3 Hawks were cited by the MRP? Come to think of it, when's the last time three players from any team were cited by the MRP (except for melees, of course)? Is this an indicator of how much they went the biff?

[Akum 2,660]

42 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Probably because we don't want Frost, T Mc, Oscar, Hunt or Harmes ie. 5/7 of our backline doing the kick ins. Even Jetta isn't a great option. So a lot of the time it's waiting for Vince to get there. In time more of the backline (including some of those guys) will be capable of taking the kick ins.

Edit: I think we scored 2 goals from kick ins on the weekend and the Hawks had only conceded a few goals from kick ins all season, so we got some of them right!

Just want to pick up on the Vince thing as well. His game as distributor was very very good. It looked like he wasn't trying to hit pinpoint targets (with a few well-chosen exceptions e.g. his "mongrel pass" that led to a goal), but just to use his experience to put the ball into what he decided was the most dangerous spot. This made it very hard for the Hawks to pick off his kicks, which they usually rely on heavily, so I think he did this extremely well (I can't remember a turnover for the whole game from his kicks, can anyone else?). Could this have something to do with why they waited for him to take the kick-outs?

[Little Goffy 14,661]

10 minutes ago, Akum said:

Just want to pick up on the Vince thing as well. His game as distributor was very very good. It looked like he wasn't trying to hit pinpoint targets (with a few well-chosen exceptions e.g. his "mongrel pass" that led to a goal), but just to use his experience to put the ball into what he decided was the most dangerous spot. This made it very hard for the Hawks to pick off his kicks, which they usually rely on heavily, so I think he did this extremely well (I can't remember a turnover for the whole game from his kicks, can anyone else?). Could this have something to do with why they waited for him to take the kick-outs?

Interesting. So you're saying it was kind of an acceptance of there being a contest on the way out of 50, with the trade-off being a bit of unpredictability. Accepting that our skills aren't up to doing 'pinpoint' over and over, might as well control the fall.

[DeeSpencer 26,090]

12 minutes ago, Akum said:

Just want to pick up on the Vince thing as well. His game as distributor was very very good. It looked like he wasn't trying to hit pinpoint targets (with a few well-chosen exceptions e.g. his "mongrel pass" that led to a goal), but just to use his experience to put the ball into what he decided was the most dangerous spot. This made it very hard for the Hawks to pick off his kicks, which they usually rely on heavily, so I think he did this extremely well (I can't remember a turnover for the whole game from his kicks, can anyone else?). Could this have something to do with why they waited for him to take the kick-outs?

He was certainly far better than last week! He's never going to be a perfect half back flanker. He should get to roam around the ground as we develop more players who can play multiple positions. But he's embraced the role pretty well. 

He's taking the kick outs because he's an experienced player down back who can kick! Once you take out young players and ones who can't kick he's pretty much the only one left!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

No structure with Hogan and Weideman today.

Pedersen worked so hard last week, another selection mistake.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

Coaches got smashed today. Pretty pathetic. 

[titan_uranus 25,046]

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No structure with Hogan and Weideman today.

Pedersen worked so hard last week, another selection mistake.

The problem was Weideman.

He wasn't capable of doing anything because his body wouldn't allow him to. It meant we only had one option when going inside 50 and Hogan had to be both the link at CHF and the target at the end (especially when Watts was in the ruck). He couldn't do both.

We should have known better, given Weideman blew up fitness-wise in the second quarter against Hawthorn. 

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

Pedo would have been watching and having a laugh. Had been so good and so important to our structure for 2 or 3 week and is the first to be dropped by for a kid who showed signs against the Hawks but was coming back from injury. Pathetic selection and setup. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

36 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

Pedo would have been watching and having a laugh. Had been so good and so important to our structure for 2 or 3 week and is the first to be dropped by for a kid who showed signs against the Hawks but was coming back from injury. Pathetic selection and setup. 

Nonsense just keep playing more kids... one day, maybe in my next lifetime, it will eventually pay off

[Biffen 12,947]

How can you be out coached by a a tiny big eared little twerp from Tassie.

Totally embarrassing Roosy.

In fact,after next week ,you can go and leave . 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Biffen