Why does one horrible quarter always happen (and kill us)?

[Guest]

I think what others have said is basically right but us not being able to stem the tide doesn't come down to Goody.

As soon as Geelong got a run on, Nate, Jordie and someone in the forward line (Tommy Mac if he was available which alas he wasn't) needed to get in there and pass the message on to slow it down.

Some of our on field communication has improved but this clearly remains a big issue.

 

[poita 3,902]

I think it is inevitable that both sides will get right on top for periods of games in the current era. What matters is how you deal with it. 

We were carved up across our half forward line in the second quarter because Geelong had an extra number around the ball and because the likes of Melksham, Garlett and Hannan didn't work hard enough to lock the ball in. With Fritsch also in the side, we have too many players who are not capable of playing four decent quarters, and who don't work hard enough for long enough.

Meanwhile our extra player was often Wagner or Lewis across half back, and neither was positioned well enough or worked hard enough to make a contest when Geelong went forward.

If Goodwin wants to play seven defenders, he has to ensure that the spare is someone who can read the play well and provide cover for the other defenders. Lever was recruited to be that player, so I'm not sure why he was wasted in a traditional defensive role. As an aside, Jetta and Hibberd both had poor games, and they are generally players who can be relied upon to be third man up.

As others have said, we seem to want to play a certain way and are reluctant to change things, even for a few minutes, when momentum is against us. We probably should have taken out the loose player and moved them onto the ball to stop Geelong from taking easy clearances. I don't think Goodwin had a great game overall, even though we could have won the match in the end.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

I would say it’s lack of onfield leadership. No one out there to pull in heads and stop panic until a reset at the breaks. That’s what it looked like. Just like the first quarter against Collingwood in round 23. One wishes the siren would sound 10 minutes early because it’s obvious the damage just gets worse. Sure amongst the talent in our side there must be some untried latent leadership? For now need Viney back quick. Jones is no good. Further,  there is no leadership to organise the forward line and bloody get someone to lead and structure up.

Edited March 26, 2018 by america de cali

[ignition. 1,477]

The game plan is too inefficient and tiring. The team doesn't spread. It's always about a contest. Every goal is made difficult. Thus, some players get tired, structures fall apart, and a fade-out occurs.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ignition.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

Start a fight to stop momentum

[The Chazz 4,077]

We don't have a great shutdown player.  Someone who is willing to sit on the most damaging midfielder.  Their sole job is to make sure they make it impossible for their opponent to get in to space.  Might be for 10 minutes, might be for the rest of the game.  If they can stop a dominant mid, as well as getting the ball themselves, even better.

Generally a team's momentum starts in the middle.

[titan_uranus 25,047]

An interesting set of responses (which, I might add, has been great to read without bickering etc.).

Leadership, fitness, coaching, the gameplan and skill have all been suggested.

My personal view is that we, possibly more so than other clubs, are really set on following our gameplan. We keep our extra man off the back of the square almost permanently. We continue to attack the contest in the same way and try to move the ball in the same way. We don't often stop and spend 5-10 minutes playing slower, possession football. We don't move the spare man into the forward line or the contest. Instead, I get the feeling that we prefer to back ourselves in (the coaches having instilled this view in the players). If it doesn't work, we don't seem to make any substantive changes until the next break between quarters (whether that's because the coaches don't send messages out to make certain changes or the leaders on-field don't do it themselves).

It shouldn't take until late in the fourth quarter, when the game's on the line, for us to be prepared to depart from the standard. I'm all for pushing our players to play the brand of football we want to play, but we have to have that understanding of when we need to make small changes - given we're a complete outlier statistically in terms of these 30+ point quarter losses, clearly minimising the damage from a bad quarter or an opponent's momentum is something the better sides are all capable of doing, and we need to learn how to do it too.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

6 hours ago, The Chazz said:

We don't have a great shutdown player.  Someone who is willing to sit on the most damaging midfielder.  Their sole job is to make sure they make it impossible for their opponent to get in to space.  Might be for 10 minutes, might be for the rest of the game.  If they can stop a dominant mid, as well as getting the ball themselves, even better.

Generally a team's momentum starts in the middle.

Can team's carry a shutdown player these days?  10 years ago you could, but I don't think you can play a pure shutdown style player anymore.  I'm not even sure many clubs do it on a regular basis either.

Putting Maynard in the guts to run with someone like Ablett looks like a decent experiment on paper, but a bloke in his second game got beaten by a two time Brownlow Medallist, which is hardly surprising.  It didn't work and I'm not sure how often we'll go back to it this season.

[old dee 23,881]

It says to me that we are still about five players short. There are five that played on Sunday that are on the wrong side of average. When 5-6 of our better players drop their intensity ( which happens in most sides ) these players are not good enough to take up the slack. 

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

delete

Edited March 26, 2018 by Unleash Hell
Update

[Earl Hood 6,107]

41 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

An interesting set of responses (which, I might add, has been great to read without bickering etc.).

Leadership, fitness, coaching, the gameplan and skill have all been suggested.

My personal view is that we, possibly more so than other clubs, are really set on following our gameplan. We keep our extra man off the back of the square almost permanently. We continue to attack the contest in the same way and try to move the ball in the same way. We don't often stop and spend 5-10 minutes playing slower, possession football. We don't move the spare man into the forward line or the contest. Instead, I get the feeling that we prefer to back ourselves in (the coaches having instilled this view in the players). If it doesn't work, we don't seem to make any substantive changes until the next break between quarters (whether that's because the coaches don't send messages out to make certain changes or the leaders on-field don't do it themselves).

It shouldn't take until late in the fourth quarter, when the game's on the line, for us to be prepared to depart from the standard. I'm all for pushing our players to play the brand of football we want to play, but we have to have that understanding of when we need to make small changes - given we're a complete outlier statistically in terms of these 30+ point quarter losses, clearly minimising the damage from a bad quarter or an opponent's momentum is something the better sides are all capable of doing, and we need to learn how to do it too.

Agree TU it’s called momentum footy, I think Roosy invented it? Know when to attack and when to just possess. Geelong slowed us down towards the end of the first quarter by possessing the footy, chipping it around down back. We needed to do that in the second quarter but we just kept going helter, skelter pushing forward although it kept being intercepted and run back into their forward line by hand and foot right into the 50m arc that made our backman look inept but what could they do?

[Bonkers 994]

Personally I think the game style is out of balance with the players we have at our disposal. Currently it's really inefficient going forward unless we are going to have more forwards that run and chase harder to lock the ball in harder than Garlett, Fritch and Hannan. Richmonds game style works when they bomb it forward because they've got 6 forwards that will work there backsides off to lock it in. We don't have that so we can't afford to bomb the ball in the way we are at the moment and turn it over.

We can go toe to toe with any team when it comes to attack on the footy. But and it's a big but we don't have the players to run into space and hit up targets that expose teams the way we get exposed going the other way. That's probably our biggest weakness at the moment that we lack polish when moving the ball by foot.

When we score it seems like it's a lot of hard work, in comparison the opposition scores very easily. Perhaps we have to look at locking the game down a bit and playing stoppage footy a bit like the old Paul Roos style of football to stem the tide in games when we are off balance like the first half yesterday. 

[layzie 34,069]

I couldn’t believe it to be honest. After a long summer of a burning in the guts to think that we could just fade out like that. I felt like going to sleep.

This just can’t happen if you want to be a good side, as mentioned before you can have the 5 to 10 minute lapses but a whole quarter doesn’t cut it.

[The Chazz 4,077]

15 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Can team's carry a shutdown player these days?  10 years ago you could, but I don't think you can play a pure shutdown style player anymore.  I'm not even sure many clubs do it on a regular basis either.

Putting Maynard in the guts to run with someone like Ablett looks like a decent experiment on paper, but a bloke in his second game got beaten by a two time Brownlow Medallist, which is hardly surprising.  It didn't work and I'm not sure how often we'll go back to it this season.

The point is not carrying a shutdown player, it's carrying someone that can do it to a high standard if needed.

Richmond got back in to the grand final last year when they sent someone (Lennon maybe?) to tag Sloane after quarter time (Sloane was the most damaging mid in the first quarter, and Adelaide were looking strong).

Same happened when we sent Viney to Selwood a couple of years ago, and got a lot of the ball himself.  Same when Vince tagged Danger back when he was playing for Adelaide.  They both (Viney and Vince) got a fair bit of the ball themselves.

I'm thinking someone like Bugg could be that man.  His standard role is being the HFF that kicks goals, but at any moment, can go in to the guts and stop a dominant mid.  He has the tank, but does he have the discipline?

It would depend on if Goody thinks we need someone to play this sort of role.  I personally think it's something we lack, but I'm not the coach!

 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 12:53 PM, Dante said:

That's the problem, they waltzed in, under no pressure, they are a skilled side and our game plan just doesn't stand up to that sort of play, our players lack skill, we are hard at the ball but not skillful enough when we get it. They were organised, we were not.

In no particular order we have, Tyson, Wagner, Harmes, Hunt, Bugg, Maynard, Jones, Pederson who all put in and are hard at it, but just lack the skill and finesse to compete with the better sides, better players. We have too many players on the list that lack composure.

If I was a Cats supporter, I would have loved the way they passed the ball around with precision and how they drew 2 or 3 of our players in to the tackle and then hand passed the ball to a free player who's man had left him. 

 

This is a solid post and some great points Dante.  The main points for me here are composure and finesse once we have the ball in hand.  If you overlook these two aspects you are doomed to live in a Demon dream about the prospects of this team from here until whenever that changes (hopefully sooner than later!)

Our handballs and kicks are often directed to no one in particular.  Too many on our list are so often the NFL style of player in the last few minutes of a countdown, just hail marying handballs and kicks forward without looking or assessing.  Often attempting to pass to players well outnumbered/about to be tackled, or just in an unrealistic low percentage pass/handball position.  These are more often than not long and loopy disposals also, giving little chance of the receiver gaining/maintaining possession and our opponents plenty of TIME to close the play down, spoil and get numbers around to assist.  The above results in way too many easy turnovers back to our opponents when we had a chance to find a target or slow down a little, get a few handballs out into the clear and find a target latterly or up field if the option is there.

We are just one constant break neck "go forward at all costs"" team it would seem, even to the point of ignoring free options on the inside or behind play in a better position to receive and with more chance to impact as they will have more space/time.  We don't look to go laterally or backwards very often when options are closed off up field (yes the opponent, especially good ones, can defend VERY effectively sometimes and have numbers back!!!) or under decent pressure, or look for the switch often enough.  In fact Max was one of the few players I can recall who found a target laterally inside in the first quarter.  Most others across HB just break neck forward....go go go!  Looks great when it works but once the opponent knows what you are on about they can organise and defend this, even better than early on when the game is in its infancy and no one is yet truly aware of your style.

It's then only a matter of time before our opponent gets on top of us given our method above.  Even if we are getting a stack of of the pill like, the first quarter of Sunday (9 clearances to 1 or zero at one stage well in to the first quarter!!!!!), we WASTE so many opportunities it is a real shame.  Too easily defended!  Great at getting the pill from a stoppage, mostly wasting opportunities when the ball is on the move or in our hands.  Simple as that.  No wonder the Cats got on top in the 2nd.  They had us worked out and organised even more effectively down back then just continued to take advantage on the scoreboard.

I can count only one kick from Melksham coming off HB through the middle where one of our players lowered his eyes and hit a target (think it may have been Hulk) in that first quarter with all the clearances/possessions off HB and inside 50 entries (or just outside) that we had.

And some examples of the worst offenders at break neck "all ahead full" bombing/handballing in that first quarter?....

~ Sorry Cap:  I love ya to death bro but....In that first quarter you continued to spray wide, didn't look, bombed bombed bombed, sprayed it wide to a player well covered, handballed to a player about to be tackled etc.  Plenty of possessions but most resulting in poor disposal from poor decision making or panic forward disposals.

~ Lewis:  On one occasion gets a nice handball receive and loose at HF just panic kicks a left foot tumble punt forward giving our forwards no chance and the Cats just ran it straight out back down the other end.  Luckily O-Mac spoils it out of bounds.

~  Harms:  Earns a free kick at HF and doesn't assess.  Just plays on quickly (towards boundary...how about wait and assess / look inside first) and kicks in hope (way too wide) to an invisible man in the pocket who is unable to get near his extremely short kick (Hannan) and the ball is out of bounce in a low percentage area of the forward.   How about we do what good teams usually do and go back behind the mark quickly, try to hit a target on the lead on a better angle or kick it to the hot spot?  Or pass it off laterally around HF on a better angle in the hope that the next player might find a target (and keep possession!!??).  Luckily ANB got hold of the pill shortly after from the throw in and in one of our very rare "front and square" examples from a medium (but not a genuine forward!) he kicks a goal off the pack.

ORGANISATION

Why did we run with 4 to 5 different opponents on Ablett, arguably the best player in the AFL or one of, during the first 12 minutes of the first quarter?  At one stage with 8 minutes to go we had Hulk on him!!  Seriously coaches what were you thinking!  Guess what....surprise surprise Ablett takes Hulk to the drop, turns him on a dime, paddles the ball on to the advantage of a few other Cats forward, who then work it out to Selwood.  By this stage Hulk has given up the chase (like he had a chance!) and is about 50 meters behind Ablett who has run further deep forward flank for the next receive (after Selwood gets free and tumble punts a PASS to someone who then handballs over the top to guess who!).  He of course finishes, being the superstar he is, and bob's your uncle.  Cats in front again.  He ran ahead of the ball freely, knowing his direct opponent had absolutely ZERO chance of shutting him down and kicked for goal under little pressure.

While the above may have been a one off accident (with Clarry manning him in the next centre bounce) we just cant allow that sort of match up to occur against a player of that calibre.  But it wasn't a one off!  We then see Hulk on Selwood in that next bounce!  I'm sorry but we are talking chalk and cheese here in terms of ability, agility and experience in reading the play/drop of the ball and getting the cheese out of the middle in congestion.  Guess what, who gets that next clearance!  No, I'm sorry not Hulk.  His direct opponent Selwood. Luckily the forward entry from the Cats from that Selwood clearance was repelled by Lever and Hulk then benefited from Geelong's cockiness with Selwood not manning up Hulk.  Hulk gets on the end of it and ultimately wins this time by kicking a beautiful running goal from 45.  But....the Cats have no problem rolling this dice as they know they are going to win with either of those match ups, more often than not.  They are more than happy to play those odds and would do so for the entire match if allowed! 

In the next centre bounce, thankfully there is no Hulk matched against Danger or Ablett.  We see Maynard on Selwood.  Who does well, getting front position.  Selwood manhandles him without the pill (which should have been a free against Selwood (one of at least two that weren't given against him in that first quarter). Selwood also kicks in danger across Maynard's body towards the approaching ball which THEN finally results in a free kick to Maynard.  Maynard does what you would expect of a good mid and goes back quickly, bangs a long bomb straight to the hot zone.  Gives Pedo a chance and he takes a lovely pack mark and goals.   SIMPLE STUFF GUYS!  And well done to Maynard there.  On his next foray he admittedly didn't do so well, bombing a loopy drop punt to no one except Geelong defenders inside 50.  A lot to learn but only his 2nd game.

Speaking of organisation, the Cats were willing to switch in order to maintain possession and seek an alternative avenue to goal.  To do so meant they needed loose options working hard to present. They were able to do so on numerous occasions racking up uncontested marks along the way. Something we did very little of throughout the match nor in the first.  To watch this in the first quarter in particular was disappointing given we should have had plenty in the tank (no excuses).  For our part we seemed content to just bomb forward or direct it down the line most of the time without assessing. Their two new debutants also impacted the play and Kelly in particular got away from his direct opponent on a number of occasions and lead him to the ball.

While one quarter, especially the first of what is to be a very long season, should not be looked at in isolation, it is a worrying sign that we appear to be so one dimensional in general game play and allowed someone like Hulk to match up on two of the AFL's great mid fielders after having the whole summer to plan and train for it.

We need to get better organised, more professional, more composed and add a few more options to our game other than constant ""straight ahead" bombing/handpassing of the pill when other options might be on offer or the options ahead look well covered.  Lowering our eyes. Presenting on the lead.  Working hard to prevent our opponent from doing this against us so easily.  Not having passengers, especially smaller ones up forward who aren't willing to work hard to get front and square/free around the drop of the ball but instead just star gaze lazily adjacent the pack in hope or crashing the pack when they should be waiting down.  Hard working but clever please!

There is much hope and potential talent, especially when we don't make match up blunders in the middle like we did above, but still so much more that needs doing in so many other aspects.  Game time and experience will no doubt help the young stars like Tracc & Clarry to improve even more. BUT we also must recruit at least one (or two) super quick clever ball users who can beat their opponent to the drop of the ball and get the ball out to runners (or run the ball away themselves).  Having some foot speed amongst those one or two recruits will also allow us to get an extra man or two around the ball at many contests, like the Cats did on Sunday through Kelly and to a lessor degree Ratugolea.  They won many contests on the inside (and outside) by gaining this advantage through foot speed (and/or hard work/design...coaching!?).

Go the Mighty Demons!

Edited March 29, 2018 by Rusty Nails

[In Harmes Way 7,824]

On 26/03/2018 at 8:08 PM, Wiseblood said:

Putting Maynard in the guts to run with someone like Ablett looks like a decent experiment on paper, but a bloke in his second game got beaten by a two time Brownlow Medallist, which is hardly surprising.  It didn't work and I'm not sure how often we'll go back to it this season.

He wasn’t the reason we lost WB, he’ll learn from the experience and have more strings to his bow next time round. He won’t win us a flag this year as a second gamer, but will be important for us the year after next in a flag window. We must persevere with him + Weids + J.Smith and get games (including uncomfortable matchups) into them without tipping the balance of the overall team too heavily towards inexperience.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

5 minutes ago, small but forward said:

He wasn’t the reason we lost WB, he’ll learn from the experience and have more strings to his bow next time round. He won’t win us a flag this year as a second gamer, but will be important for us the year after next in a flag window. We must persevere with him + Weids + J.Smith and get games (including uncomfortable matchups) into them without tipping the balance of the overall team too heavily towards inexperience.

I wasn't suggesting he was, just that it was an experiment that meant well but delivered little.  You couldn't ask too much more of a second gamer - how many of them would be able to run with Ablett all day?  Very little.  He had a real crack but it wasn't surprising that he couldn't keep the little master quiet.

[In Harmes Way 7,824]

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I wasn't suggesting he was, just that it was an experiment that meant well but delivered little.  You couldn't ask too much more of a second gamer - how many of them would be able to run with Ablett all day?  Very little.  He had a real crack but it wasn't surprising that he couldn't keep the little master quiet.

Certainly not suugesting you were either WB - my point is we shouldn’t be (and we’re not) afraid to give him that assignment. Only bodes well for us in the long run.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, small but forward said:

Certainly not suugesting you were either WB - my point is we shouldn’t be (and we’re not) afraid to give him that assignment. Only bodes well for us in the long run.

I agree to be honest.  I think it shows the FD believe he really has something to offer the side going forward; it might not have worked this time around, but I'm certain he'll get another crack sooner rather than later.

[Redleg 41,643]

13 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I agree to be honest.  I think it shows the FD believe he really has something to offer the side going forward; it might not have worked this time around, but I'm certain he'll get another crack sooner rather than later.

I agree that Maynard has ability and may like Joel Smith, Hannan, Weid and others become good players for the club and the only way for that to happen, is to play them at senior level when they deserve games and give them their chance.

However, I think it was a big mistake, to send a second gamer out into the same midfield as two of the greatest players in AFL history, one playing his 250th and leader of his club and the other being the return game to his club after years at another club, without the assistance of experienced mids in Viney, Tyson and even Brayshaw.

Put simply it was too hard a task and the Coach blundered.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Redleg

[old dee 23,881]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I agree that Maynard has ability and may like Joel Smith, Hannan, Weid and others become good players for the club and the only way for that to happen, is to play them at senior level when they deserve games and give them their chance.

However, I think it was a big mistake, to send a second gamer out into the same midfield as two of the greatest players in AFL history, one playing his 250th and leader of his club and the other being the return game to his club after years at another club, without the assistance of experienced mids in Viney, Tyson and even Brayshaw.

Put simply it was too hard a task and the Coach blundered.

Exactly Mr. Leg.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I agree that Maynard has ability and may like Joel Smith, Hannan, Weid and others become good players for the club and the only way for that to happen, is to play them at senior level when they deserve games and give them their chance.

However, I think it was a big mistake, to send a second gamer out into the same midfield as two of the greatest players in AFL history, one playing his 250th and leader of his club and the other being the return game to his club after years at another club, without the assistance of experienced mids in Viney, Tyson and even Brayshaw.

Put simply it was too hard a task and the Coach blundered.

I said much the same thing earlier in regards to your second paragraph, Red.  Clearly they believed he could do it, or at least make an impact, but a bloke in just his second game of football can't be expected to curb one of the greats of the game.  Maybe they just hoped he would limit his influence throughout the game, but as you say, it was a bit of a blunder in the end.  His omission is evidence of that.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,299]

Nice post Rusty Nails.