Terry Wallace on Why the Dees Lost

[Demonland 66,968]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/03/26/plough-outlines-why-demons-lost/

We handball too much.

“I think Melbourne could have won the game by three or four goals, and not waited for the Max Gawn kick,” Wallace told SEN’s KB and The Doc.

“The top-three possession winners for Melbourne don’t kick the ball enough.

“They over hand pass the ball and don’t kick it enough."

Do you agree?

 

[Fork 'em 6,629]

Just as concerning is that 70% of kicks are mindless long bombs to the top of the square.

 

[deelete my account 1,194]

15 minutes ago, Demonland said:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/03/26/plough-outlines-why-demons-lost/

We handball too much.

“I think Melbourne could have won the game by three or four goals, and not waited for the Max Gawn kick,” Wallace told SEN’s KB and The Doc.

“The top-three possession winners for Melbourne don’t kick the ball enough.

“They over hand pass the ball and don’t kick it enough."

Do you agree?

 

Our mids haven't fully developed to the level of clearing packs with speed or stiff arms to give them the space necessary to kick accurately and not bomb it to an easy opposition rebound, pretty unfair to heap any blame on them over over handballing. At least they win it.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Doodle Dee

[Goffer 256]

Lack of defensive pressure cost us. Too few players chipped in when needed 

[Dee Zephyr 18,246]

Pffft Plough!!! 

Conveniently he names Lewis as our third highest possession winner and only having 6 kicks but Trac had the same amount of possessions with 14 kicks and no mention of him.

2 out of 3 Cats’ highest possession winners had more handballs than kicks. 

[McQueen 17,864]

It’s not as bad as it has been (the ratio) but Wallace has a point. 

 

[Males 578]

We handball more then I'd like, mainly because we either handball to someone under more pressure, or loop a sloppy handball, causing that player to have to then handball under pressure too. I didn't think it was as bad this game as last year though.

[MurDoc516 1,355]

Don't agree. Prime Geelong dominated on handball game. Maybe it's outdated, but we ain't a bad team and during our run last season we could've beaten anyone before the team fell apart because of injuries. 

[Little Richard 5,943]

Our handball chains have come a looooong way since the Neeld era, but at times we definitely overuse. We cleared the ball fairly well though and it was the kicks themselves that killed us.

As Fork Em said and I've been harping on about, I cannot believe they haven't addressed the stupid bombs into the forward 50. It's laughable how quickly the ball is rebounded out due to lack of forward pressure too.

[grazman 6,744]

Might also explain why our marking numbers are down, hard to mark the ball when you aren't kicking it

[buck_nekkid 5,648]

Giving up 80 points in a half was what did it.  Defensive efforts in every zone were not up to scratch.  I felt the cats handballed more than we did - we blazed blindly to outnumbered positions to be easily outmarked.

[John Crow Batty 8,376]

I did notice that handball chains helped set up penetrating forward movements but that movement  is slow thus Geelong had time to set up in defence at their leisure. Sometimes a quick long quick forward might catch defenders out of position. Did not see that often 

[praha 10,574]

All this talk of "blazing away" is nonsense. Nothing better for a forward than to get the ball in quickly. Our forward setup is based around key forwards bringing the ball down and crumbers picking up the pieces. When we win, ANB, Harmes, Melksham, Garlett tend to all have a contribution. Pederson and Hogan both played their roles. Our small forwards didn't. We went forward, Geelong swept it out, went forward, and scored from a fairly empty forward line. It is as simple as that. That's where we lost it. Throw in poor defensive efforts from our midfielders, and minimal two-way running, and you have the second quarter. 

If your small forwards aren't pressuring and scoring from contested packs, you'll struggle to win, regardless of your opponent.

[Dee Zephyr 18,246]

43 minutes ago, praha said:

Throw in poor defensive efforts from our midfielders, and minimal two-way running, and you have the second quarter. 

Yep, all you have to do is look at the Guthrie goal in the second quarter. Infuriating!!

[Wiseblood 24,636]

55 minutes ago, praha said:

All this talk of "blazing away" is nonsense. Nothing better for a forward than to get the ball in quickly. Our forward setup is based around key forwards bringing the ball down and crumbers picking up the pieces. When we win, ANB, Harmes, Melksham, Garlett tend to all have a contribution. Pederson and Hogan both played their roles. Our small forwards didn't. We went forward, Geelong swept it out, went forward, and scored from a fairly empty forward line. It is as simple as that. That's where we lost it. Throw in poor defensive efforts from our midfielders, and minimal two-way running, and you have the second quarter. 

If your small forwards aren't pressuring and scoring from contested packs, you'll struggle to win, regardless of your opponent.

Couldn't agree more, praha.  Perfectly summed up.  

Our use of handball wasn't an issue in helping us get the ball forward - we had enough of it to get far more entries than Geelong did, we just didn't have the support from our small and medium forwards.  Fix that up and, generally, it won't be an issue.

[binman 39,612]

53 minutes ago, praha said:

All this talk of "blazing away" is nonsense. Nothing better for a forward than to get the ball in quickly. Our forward setup is based around key forwards bringing the ball down and crumbers picking up the pieces. When we win, ANB, Harmes, Melksham, Garlett tend to all have a contribution. Pederson and Hogan both played their roles. Our small forwards didn't. We went forward, Geelong swept it out, went forward, and scored from a fairly empty forward line. It is as simple as that. That's where we lost it. Throw in poor defensive efforts from our midfielders, and minimal two-way running, and you have the second quarter. 

If your small forwards aren't pressuring and scoring from contested packs, you'll struggle to win, regardless of your opponent.

Agree. To an extent.

As buck says our defensive efforts all over the ground were poor in the first half, partic in our forward line which enabled the cats to sweep the ball forward quickly. Sure the defensive unit, with one obvious exception, were down but as i said a bizzillion times last year stats like one on one marks and scoring to inside 50s ratio are largely a function of the pressure applied (or lack thereof as the case may be) by our mids and forwards, which is true of all sides, but even more so for us with our aggressive high press. No better example than the first half on sunday. Jetta and lever were exposed in the air because of a lack of pressure on the kick inside 50.

Which touches on where i slightly disagree with you praha. I agree that kicking the ball in quickly to our forwards can be effective and is clearly a key strategy. However players still need to assess when it is the right option and too often get this wrong. This occurred a number of times on sunday where we kicked to an out number, were outmarked and the spare ran it out.

The other issue for us is critical. We have too many woeful kicks who dont have the basic skill of putting the ball to a forwards advantage. Drives me nuts. Footy 101 and it must do Hogan's head in. Geelong won that game because they could execute that basic skill.

[rjay 24,193]

58 minutes ago, praha said:

All this talk of "blazing away" is nonsense. Nothing better for a forward than to get the ball in quickly. Our forward setup is based around key forwards bringing the ball down and crumbers picking up the pieces. When we win, ANB, Harmes, Melksham, Garlett tend to all have a contribution. Pederson and Hogan both played their roles. Our small forwards didn't. We went forward, Geelong swept it out, went forward, and scored from a fairly empty forward line. It is as simple as that. That's where we lost it. Throw in poor defensive efforts from our midfielders, and minimal two-way running, and you have the second quarter. 

If your small forwards aren't pressuring and scoring from contested packs, you'll struggle to win, regardless of your opponent.

 

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Couldn't agree more, praha.  Perfectly summed up.  

Our use of handball wasn't an issue in helping us get the ball forward - we had enough of it to get far more entries than Geelong did, we just didn't have the support from our small and medium forwards.  Fix that up and, generally, it won't be an issue.

Not totally correct boys...although I do agree with the forward pressure comments but a big part of that problem was the structure which was all a... up. Hard to put on pressure when your 1 on 3...

The "blazing away" talk isn't nonsense.

Yes, forwards love getting the ball in quickly but that's when they have a one on one contest and even better when the ball is kicked to advantage.

Not sure whether either of you were at the game but when we moved the ball forward our structure/set up was all wrong. We were out numbered and kicked to the advantage of our opposition.

Our small/mid forwards were sucked to far up the ground and didn't get back quickly enough. For some reason we seemed to have everyone between the 50 metre arcs..not forward and not back.

Geelong built their dynasty on the back of teams falling for this type of thing and although their star defenders have moved on we made it so easy for the incumbents.

Even Nathan said last night we will need to look at our forward set up...this comment went a little under the radar but it was illuminating. To me it said Goodie (they had discussed it) realised we got it wrong here which is a good thing. Let's hope he fixes it...

It's been a problem for a while.

[Deemania since 56 6,340]

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/03/26/plough-outlines-why-demons-lost/

We handball too much.

“I think Melbourne could have won the game by three or four goals, and not waited for the Max Gawn kick,” Wallace told SEN’s KB and The Doc.

“The top-three possession winners for Melbourne don’t kick the ball enough.

“They over hand pass the ball and don’t kick it enough."

Do you agree?

 

Watching the game at the 'G, I couldn't agree more - even in the first quarter. The ball winners seek - at the first sign of defensive pressure or contest -  to handball in close proximity rather than get open clearance  through run/kick means (from where the reliance on handball may better gain metreage in our favour), and that suggests that our set-up - particularly for centre contests and bounces is at fault. Geelong players intercepted and sharked ruck duels all day to great effect. They also 'stole' this reliance on handball almost at will as it is predictable based upon its inward-looking execution. Geelong set their clearance players out from the melee in a periphery of circling receivers, and make better use of the short kick than the Dees can. 

We should not have been reliant on one shot at goal to win the game, either. We were winning the last quarter with some style.

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It's more complex than this.

In tight, we don't look to break away before we give it off. We tend to panic and handball it off straight away without actually trying to create some space before doing so.

What is also frustrating is when we tackle opposition players they still can get a handball off yet we seem to just drop it.

 

[DemonWheels 980]

I tend to think a very important part of our game plan went out the window – switching and changing angles. Based on pre-season training and when we were at our best last year we used to broaden our vision and switch. Even just a short kick slightly backwards and out of congestion from the back flank and we'd be away. That was where we could run with a few players and handball to link up and get a much cleaner forward 50 entry on the 'fat' side.

Not sure if it was Geelong's setup that stopped us from doing it or if it was our players taking the conservative approach but we consistently kicked it to a contest within an already congested area.

[Fork 'em 6,629]

 

No good if you're bombing it that often it's not a surprise tactic.
Not gonna be dangerous if it's so predictable.
Game plan seems to give the mids an easy out.
All they have to do is get it just past the centre and then boot it as far as they can.
Job done, then its Hogans problem.


 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Fork 'em

[Deemania since 56 6,340]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree. To an extent.

As buck says our defensive efforts all over the ground were poor in the first half, partic in our forward line which enabled the cats to sweep the ball forward quickly. Sure the defensive unit, with one obvious exception, were down but as i said a bizzillion times last year stats like one on one marks and scoring to inside 50s ratio are largely a function of the pressure applied (or lack thereof as the case may be) by our mids and forwards, which is true of all sides, but even more so for us with our aggressive high press. No better example than the first half on sunday. Jetta and lever were exposed in the air because of a lack of pressure on the kick inside 50.

Which touches on where i slightly disagree with you praha. I agree that kicking the ball in quickly to our forwards can be effective and is clearly a key strategy. However players still need to assess when it is the right option and too often get this wrong. This occurred a number of times on sunday where we kicked to an out number, were outmarked and the spare ran it out.

The other issue for us is critical. We have too many woeful kicks who dont have the basic skill of putting the ball to a forwards advantage. Drives me nuts. Footy 101 and it must do Hogan's head in. Geelong won that game because they could execute that basic skill.

There are many points and observations that may in combination result in that loss. Most seem entirely reasonable as each point contributes to success or failure to score - or defend against scoring by the opposition. Binman hits these nails on the head and we may still have won had our forward defensive pressure been greater on the day. The loss was a consequence of poor kicking to the advantage of our forwards, repeatedly. Kicking out, we went to numbers, not players. If key 'marking players' assemble with the opposition, the chances of winning the ball are somewhat in the order of 40:60. We need to up those odds by establishing mobile marking and shepherding small groups that move away from the opponents' congregations to gain that space of about 30m at the most.  That is the start of effective rebounding. It takes a good decision-maker at full back, and one with exceptional kicking/placement skills. It also involves taking control of the game. Geelong broke our penetration ability; if their forwards were manned, they used a series of accurate kicks to 'switch' or to maintain possession mid-field, and wisely selected the moments to pass to forwards. We did not. 

[jackaub 1,402]

The game plan either is Sh%÷€¥use or the players have learned absolutley nothing from last year

Same old problems

Sack the coach!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fork 'em 6,629]

1 minute ago, Deemania since 56 said:

 Geelong broke our penetration ability; if their forwards were manned, they used a series of accurate kicks to 'switch' or to maintain possession mid-field, and wisely selected the moments to pass to forwards. We did not. 

Because we lack the composure of a good side.
We lack the talent to kick the goals that need to be kicked.

[nosoupforme 3,085]

2 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Giving up 80 points in a half was what did it.  Defensive efforts in every zone were not up to scratch.  I felt the cats handballed more than we did - we blazed blindly to outnumbered positions to be easily outmarked.

You are on the money, they handballed in better position and backed the running player when loose.  However  I believe Lever was outpointed in the 1st half and looked out of sorts 1st game or not for us, he has to do better.