Why did we fail to make the finals last season? Many attribute it to the last round loss to Collingwood, and/or the poor performance against Brisbane the week prior. I also recall three narrow losses near the start of the season that were faulted at selection, such as the naming’s JKH and a premature Weideman. We’ve also argued the regular overuse of the handball, as well as single quarter fadeouts. I guess there’s no right or wrong answer and it’s in the past. However, it was clear we all wanted improvements in these areas, so the question is now, have they been made?

Let’s start with selection. Many of us were gobsmacked with the naming’s of Wagner and Maynard over Brayshaw and Tyson. Additional, some of us questioned the omission of Frost when facing the well-built Hawkins and Taylor. Consequently, Wagner’s first half was atrocious, where on three separate occasions he made foolish errors, including a missed tackle, a failed pick-up, and arguably a failed spoil, which cost us goals. His second half was better, although, I still consider him a liability. Next were our tall backs. On too many occasions O.McDonald got man-handled by Hawkins. Granted, he and Lever did a good job curbing his influence, although, things may have been different if Taylor didn’t go off early. Thus, I still can’t fathom the omission of Frost. Additionally, did we or did we not target Lever for his innate ability to leave his man to spoil or intercept a mark for a defensive rebound (we saw very little of this yesterday)? If so, why is Lever playing as the second tall? At Adelaide he played as the third behind Talia and Keath/Hartigan so he could do what he does best. The coaching panel have and tendency to create non-beneficial miss-matches (before and during game day). I hope the basic concepts of opposition analysis and player selection improve by next week.

Now the game plan. Time and time again we’re reminded we’re to play a contested brand of football. That’s great, but what about the other half of non-contested football and efficient transitions from one end of the ground to the other? Yesterday, we won the contested possession and tackling pressure counts, yet Geelong destroyed us on the spread where they continually hit one-another lace out on the chest. Conversely, we continually, instead of overusing the handball like last year, opted to flood an end or side and bomb it to a contest (out of fifty, down the wing, inside fifty). How do we expect to make a tilt for finals if we can’t spread and hit lead up targets by foot (this was also an issue last year)? We’ve got that very large MCG to call our own, and yet we don’t use it appropriately. Instead every goal is made difficult. If given the space we’ll see far more from the less contested players such as Hunt, Melksham, Hannan, and Garlett. Dare I say it will be interesting to watch Watts with more space at Port Adelaide. If what we saw yesterday was the game plan it is far too one-dimensional, far too inefficient and tiring, and needs to be supplemented. If not I expect more single quarter fadeouts and subsequent losses.

What are your thoughts and arguments? For me these need to improve above all else as I genuinely believe we have a list that on its day can beat any other to a flag.

Goodwin touched on the disposal in his Post Match.

Would have to agree that "bombing it"only counts for Inside 50 Stat not scoring stat. When we moved the ball well (lowered eyes) we made it look easy.

Game 1 of 25.

To be honest Tyson and Viney  are see ball, get ball, and bomb, so our solution has to come from within present group. e.g. Salem, Watts, Trac , Oliver, Brayshaw i.e. Runners and Deliverers

Goodwin has had a strong conviction in his game-plan from the get-go.  Contested primacy, kamikaze movement, quick entry, forward pressure, and an ultra-high press. And despite what he's said, I suspect that the long bombs into the 50 are an entirely intended part of this package - he's even brought back the torp.

The premise is fairly simple; be better at getting the ball, take risks in getting it forward, and do your best to trap it there - and you'll likely score more goals on average than your opposition. He's designed it to crack the game, and whether it will work remains to be seen - but it can't be judged on the sample to date and he's going to back it in.

The team is still developing its capacity to execute the challenging set-up - and there may be some unexpected peripheral issues that make it impossible to achieve (such as if our regular fade-outs are a factor of the strategy due to fatigue) - but we could well become unstoppable. In the meantime, get used to ugly leaked goals out the back, regular turnovers, and messy forward entries - as they are the flip-side and sacrifice in what we're trying to do. 

It's not a matter of failing to fix these things - or that we can see what the coach can't - as the only plan is to mitigate them as much as possible by way of the team getting better and through additions in appropriate personnel. Even minor tweaks will have negative ramifications, such as when we slightly eased the depth of the forward press toward the mid-point of last season and our scoring dried up. Such is the nature of our high-risk (and hopefully) high-reward strategy for the flag. 

15 hours ago, dimmy said:

Goodwin touched on the disposal in his Post Match.

Would have to agree that "bombing it"only counts for Inside 50 Stat not scoring stat. When we moved the ball well (lowered eyes) we made it look easy.

Game 1 of 25.

To be honest Tyson and Viney  are see ball, get ball, and bomb, so our solution has to come from within present group. e.g. Salem, Watts, Trac , Oliver, Brayshaw i.e. Runners and Deliverers

I think you missed something during the trade period...

But I do like your optimism:  Game 1 of 25!! 

I don’t see selection as an big issue atm. Supporters are very passionate about this and many weeks last year on a Thursday night would be posting that we’ve lost this selection only for us to have a good win. Our main issue imo is a lack of self belief and mental toughness. 

Last year we were still a developing team so I think it is fair enough to give games to young players to see what they can do. 

Regarding frost, Hawkins was well held so it was a good call to not include him. on Wagner, he made a couple of errors like many players did but overall his positives outweighed the negatives. He also saved goals with tackles. So again I would not say this is a selection error. 

Thats my two cents anyway!

I've been meaning to write this since the weekend as I had previously given the game plan a bit of a bashing.

I must say, the first half and especially first quarter was sensational to watch. It was good to see the team spread and subsequently use the ball well off the back of their highly contested style. I hope we see that more often.

It was also refreshing to hear Roosy mentioned how Goodwin had put an emphasis on it after reviewing their last game (after speaking to him).

On 3/26/2018 at 3:30 PM, dimmy said:

Goodwin touched on the disposal in his Post Match.

Would have to agree that "bombing it"only counts for Inside 50 Stat not scoring stat. When we moved the ball well (lowered eyes) we made it look easy.

Game 1 of 25.

To be honest Tyson and Viney  are see ball, get ball, and bomb, so our solution has to come from within present group. e.g. Salem, Watts, Trac , Oliver, Brayshaw i.e. Runners and Deliverers

Watts his name doesn't live here anymore!!!!!

The game plan is still the major issue.

There does not appear to be a Plan B.

Again, the team is bunched trying to run in a wave. It's why we generally win the contested possesion count. However, it attracts a lot of the opposition, causes congestion, resulting in either overuse or bombing on the boot to a contest. There is nothing efficient about it, it fatigues the players and in my belief the major reason for lapses and fade-outs. Additionally, when a turnover occurs the opposition generally gets it out to space for a run on resulting in an easy score against (it has happened time and time again, we try incredibly hard to score, yet the opposition do so with ease). Roosy has shed light onto this as to why we get scored against so easily.

If the coach opted to run with it in patches, in conjunction with an alternate plan utilizing basic spreading, chip, mid, and long range kicking to space and lead up targets, GREAT! I'm sure it would work. But again, there is just no plan B, and the current style is just not sustainable over the entire game.

More frustrating is the fact that Goodwin got questioned on the game plan last night in his post-match interview. He spun some rubbish PR response reverting back to the players, yet the bloke doesn't seem to realise how damaging his style is. I'm getting sick of it and him very quickly. It's time he takes responsibility and adapts and/or supplements the current plan.

1 minute ago, ignition. said:

The game plan is still the major issue.

Everything is a major issue. We don't seem to spread, run and carry like every other team.

The selection committee has been a disgrace dropping Tyson, Brayshaw, Pedersen and Hunt before spuds like ANB, Harmes, Melksham and Stretch. I'll give them 1 more chance if they don't play Pedersen after kicking 5 goals I'm gonna lose it.

1 minute ago, ignition. said:

 

 

The game plan is either shite or we don’t have the cattle to execute it properly. I’m still stuck in two minds because I have seen passages of play where we look like rock stars but more generally, we look inept and the coach bereft of any other ideas to halt oppositions momentum.

I do however still believe the inclusion of Viney and Tmac will be give us so much that we’re missing. 

@ignition. et al

Not sure the having no plan B is as much the issue as having no A