How does our Defence stack up?

[praha 11,240]

On 20/03/2018 at 12:55 PM, Ethan Tremblay said:

I had a Samsung before the iPhone but it exploded. 

you won't have that issue with the iphone because the battery dies before it has a chance to heat up.

ANYWAYYYY

Our defense reminds me a lot of Essendon's circa 2000. Make no mistake, their backline is what made them so good. Their transition was amazing, and we have the pieces to be just as good.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,814]

33 minutes ago, praha said:

you won't have that issue with the iphone because the battery dies before it has a chance to heat up.

ANYWAYYYY

Our defense reminds me a lot of Essendon's circa 2000. Make no mistake, their backline is what made them so good. Their transition was amazing, and we have the pieces to be just as good.

Agreed, along with their midfield and forward line.

[P-man 13,366]

Just shown on Fox Footy that we are currently ranked 16th for how often the opposition scores once inside our defensive 50 (46.5% of the time). The only teams worse than us are St Kilda and Carlton.

The other seven sides in the top 8 are ranked in the top 8 for the same stat.

Edited June 25, 2018 by P-man

[SFebes 4,884]

7 minutes ago, P-man said:

Just shown on Fox Footy that we are currently ranked 16th for how often the opposition scores once inside our defensive 50. The only teams worse than us are St Kilda and Carlton.

The other seven sides in the top 8 are ranked in the top 8 for the same stat.

.

Edited June 25, 2018 by SFebey

[D4Life 2,476]

It was a real pity Lever went down, as the backline was really starting to gel together!

After the Port game, we probably have to go with Frost in to add height to the backline at CHB and Vince out, Hibberd going to the flank.

 

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

That would be my strategy. However, we still need speed out of defence, real speed that has consistent contributors. Another KPD would be very useful on the height/strength issue.

[DeleteUser 638]

1 hour ago, P-man said:

Just shown on Fox Footy that we are currently ranked 16th for how often the opposition scores once inside our defensive 50 (46.5% of the time). The only teams worse than us are St Kilda and Carlton.

The other seven sides in the top 8 are ranked in the top 8 for the same stat.

FMD

 

[deelete my account 1,194]

1 hour ago, timbo said:

FMD

 

F*** my defence?

Edited June 25, 2018 by John Demonic

[deanox 9,935]

12 hours ago, P-man said:

Just shown on Fox Footy that we are currently ranked 16th for how often the opposition scores once inside our defensive 50 (46.5% of the time). The only teams worse than us are St Kilda and Carlton.

The other seven sides in the top 8 are ranked in the top 8 for the same stat.

Where do we rank on the inside 50s against stat?

 

I'd rather defend from the midfield than rely on repelling from D50.

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

6 minutes ago, deanox said:

Where do we rank on the inside 50s against stat?

 

I'd rather defend from the midfield than rely on repelling from D50.

Good defence is layered defence. Without height, regardless of most other footballing categories other than taking big marks and/or effecting big spoils, and kicking accuracy over shorter distances, we ain't got nuffing. Midfielders are not the last line. One decent opposition kick or set play bypasses midfielder involvement and remediation of the attacking pressure. We need backmen who are tall, and some very good runners capable of sound close checking and capable of ball-carrying to good team effect. Good, mobile defence is the first line of attack. We are playing footballers who are not capable of this and who are reliant on using a kicking mantra only to progress the ball forward (Vince, Lewis). We can do better.

 

[beelzebub 23,380]

14 hours ago, P-man said:

Just shown on Fox Footy that we are currently ranked 16th for how often the opposition scores once inside our defensive 50 (46.5% of the time). The only teams worse than us are St Kilda and Carlton.

The other seven sides in the top 8 are ranked in the top 8 for the same stat.

The defence rest me Lud !!

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,704]

Not after Lever has fallen down We were playing with a small backline on Friday Night and got exposed with limited entrees.

I dont know much about Young Petty but if he is in good form at Casey and can hold down the 2nd tall defender roll we bring him in or Frosty.

One of Vince or Lewis has to make way.

[praha 11,240]

On 3/22/2018 at 2:32 PM, praha said:

you won't have that issue with the iphone because the battery dies before it has a chance to heat up.

ANYWAYYYY

Our defense reminds me a lot of Essendon's circa 2000. Make no mistake, their backline is what made them so good. Their transition was amazing, and we have the pieces to be just as good.

Awks.

[Lucifers Hero 39,942]

On AFL 360 last night they showed a chart how each team ranked for 'score against per opposition i50' (low score is good).  Not surprisingly, 7 of the best teams for that stat are currently in the 8 on the ladder.  The team in the 8 but not ranked highly on that stat is the Demons.  We were in the bottom 4 for that stat. 

I guess our coaches work on the basis that if we convert our massive number of i50 it will negate a high conversion rate by opps.  Unfortunately, we aren't converting our i50's to real advantage, which the better teams are very good at exploiting.  And, our massive winning margins over poorer teams has given us a great % and to some extent may paper over the cracks regarding our defence,  

At the end of the day, a good team needs to be able to limit opp scoring and the AFL 360 chart shows we are still very easy to score against.  

Edited June 26, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Skuit 10,031]

We are still the top-scoring team in the competition. It's simples. We sacrifice some of our defence for higher-scoring. A little from one column to add to the other column. 

We've been doing this all along. It's our theory on how to win - weather it's correct or not. But you can't celebrate all our goals and then bemoan that we let some easy ones through.

The notion is to continually improve at each end. Be a little bit better with forward efficiency and let just a few less goals in. Small margins that will make a massive difference when it fully clicks. Lever, in this sense, was a massive blow.   

[SFebes 4,884]

Another thing, only let Salem do the kick ins, no one else

[WERRIDEE 5,479]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:46 PM, D4Life said:

It was a real pity Lever went down, as the backline was really starting to gel together!

After the Port game, we probably have to go with Frost in to add height to the backline at CHB and Vince out, Hibberd going to the flank.

 

Vince will never go out Goody loves him the easy option is Frost for young Joel.Smith.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Now ...ppl have to look away

Its not about Oscar per se

Just our defence as a whole

Currently..it sucks

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

Great defences take time to build. Our guys haven’t played enough games together yet. We lose Lever who plays beyond his years and you need a replacement that at the moment is not capable of playing to Lever’s standard.

The Swans are a great example. They have lost the inside 50 count 7 times this year, with differentials ranging from -4 to -24 and have won all 7 games.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Dee Zephyr

[deanox 9,935]

On 6/26/2018 at 10:44 AM, Deemania since 56 said:

Good defence is layered defence. Without height, regardless of most other footballing categories other than taking big marks and/or effecting big spoils, and kicking accuracy over shorter distances, we ain't got nuffing. Midfielders are not the last line. One decent opposition kick or set play bypasses midfielder involvement and remediation of the attacking pressure. We need backmen who are tall, and some very good runners capable of sound close checking and capable of ball-carrying to good team effect. Good, mobile defence is the first line of attack. We are playing footballers who are not capable of this and who are reliant on using a kicking mantra only to progress the ball forward (Vince, Lewis). We can do better.

I think this is contradictory. 

We are attacking from our defence, and this attacking intent is the reason we have sacrificed some of our close checking defence. 

Our strategy is to defend as a unit, up the whole ground, preventing the ball from reaching our D50. We do this by playing more attacking defenders, who sit up the ground, repelling attacks in the midfield and launching our attacks. This is a risky strategy, but has huge upside. 

If the average team concedes 5 inside 50s each week, and a conversion against of 50%, they'll concede 25 shots against. 

If we concede 35 inside 50s and a conversion of 60%, we'll concede only 21 shots. 

 

If we are relying on repelling goals by our defenders on they last line we are in a desperate position. 

[Deemania since 56 6,654]

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

I think this is contradictory. 

We are attacking from our defence, and this attacking intent is the reason we have sacrificed some of our close checking defence. 

Our strategy is to defend as a unit, up the whole ground, preventing the ball from reaching our D50. We do this by playing more attacking defenders, who sit up the ground, repelling attacks in the midfield and launching our attacks. This is a risky strategy, but has huge upside. 

If the average team concedes 5 inside 50s each week, and a conversion against of 50%, they'll concede 25 shots against. 

If we concede 35 inside 50s and a conversion of 60%, we'll concede only 21 shots. 

 

If we are relying on repelling goals by our defenders on they last line we are in a desperate position. 

Yep, we are in a desperate position.