How Lever's absence is hurting the Demons

[SFebes 4,860]

 

 

[Willmoy1947 3,971]

Seventeen Clubs couldn't get their Defenders back to their Lines quick enough to start punching people...............when he was running out of defence.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,387]

In retrospect I can't think of a player more critical to our structure and success than Jake Lever.

And that includes Gawn, as we got away with Pedo and T Mac sharing the ruck last year.  And it's not as if we're shooting the lights out anyway with Gawn rucking, he's just killing it with contested marking and overall effort..

[tiers 2,810]

It is not only his "intercept" marking that is valuable but also his ability to be back stop and last man in defence that counted.

Imagine Lever helping out first gamer Petty in the last quarter. Even if only one goal had been saved, it would have been enough.

I thought Lewis might fill this role - back stop and general. Seems not any more..

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,585]

6 hours ago, SFebey said:

 

 

I read it today and it made me ill.

[D4Life 2,405]

Unfortunately Ben Guthrie is right, losing Levers intercepts marks, spoils, leadership & structure has really hurt the Demons. Weeks 1-5 Lever struggled to get going, but then as he settled in and the backline got use to him as part of the unit:

- we kept 3 players in the backline rather than all pressing into our forward half

- stopped 3-4 players flying at once (which is happening in our forward line at the moment, with no real crumbers)

- someone stayed near the goalsquare down back

and how have we tried to replace him?

- Joel Smith with all 3 games experience 

- then added Petty(vfl form wasn’t great) to debut instead of Vince

- for me get Frost (playing very well in VFL) in for Petty 

- give Joel Smith 3-4 more weeks, if he makes it great, if not Vince possibly comes back

other defensive issues:

- Tyson on wing too slow, rarely ever see him chase, give Stretch(been great in VFL)a go for 4/6 weeks, just back him and say go for it!

- forward line too many play tall, replace with Spargo & or Garlett

- back three stay at back of square

- put some heat on Petracca, Melksham, forwards & mids to really chase

Outs: Petty, Tyson, Hannan, 

Ins: Frost, Stretch, Garlett

And after last week would add in Spargo considering Weideman, Salem or even Jetta out. Jetta to rest, he looked out of it last week.

Feels cathartic to write out my defensive druthers!

Would feel even better to ban a lot of the umpires from our matches, 28 Parnell needs a seeing eye dog!

[SFebes 4,860]

We didn’t have Lever last year, yet we held up OK apart from maybe a Crows game in Darwin? So how did we cope last year and not get blown away? Doesn’t make sense to me on how we’ve leaked so badly this year, personnel issue or coaching/structural?

Happy to be corrected on last years games but IIRC it wasn’t this bad.

[D4Life 2,405]

14 minutes ago, SFebey said:

We didn’t have Lever last year, yet we held up OK apart from maybe a Crows game in Darwin? So how did we cope last year and not get blown away? Doesn’t make sense to me on how we’ve leaked so badly this year, personnel issue or coaching/structural?

Happy to be corrected on last years games but IIRC it wasn’t this bad.

TMac at CHB, aside from a 4-5 game period at FF.

This year, need to have a punt on Frost, give him 3-4 weeks! At least he has a strong physique and can run!

[SFebes 4,860]

Just now, D4Life said:

TMac at CHB, aside from a 4-5 game period at FF.

This year, need to have a punt on Frost, give him 3-4 weeks! At least he has a strong physique and can run!

I can’t remember when TMac went forward but I was there for the WCE in WA when he played forward and we won.

[What 18,810]

His breakout game for us against Adelaide was so good.. he was manic, attacking everything in the air and diving after every loose ball putting his neck on the line. His timing was back, he was cutting off everything.  It was like there was two Levers out there.  He looked like a superstar and thats exactly what he was about to become.   

Edited July 4, 2018 by Petraccattack

[Skuit 9,965]

6 hours ago, SFebey said:

We didn’t have Lever last year, yet we held up OK apart from maybe a Crows game in Darwin? So how did we cope last year and not get blown away? Doesn’t make sense to me on how we’ve leaked so badly this year, personnel issue or coaching/structural?

Happy to be corrected on last years games but IIRC it wasn’t this bad.

As posted elsewhere, we've conceded ten goals less this year than at the same stage last year. However, we've quickly gone backwards without Lever's increasingly growing presence. 

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals. The idea is simply to leak a little less the best that we can manage: small margins tipping the offensive/defensive ledger in our favour. 

The problem as I see it, it's a tentative and difficult plan to execute requiring a high level of familiarity and defensive cohesion. This is one of the reasons we recruited Lever - among the strongest intercept and organisational players in the league.

That also then freed up Tmac (our previous best intercept defender) to move forward on a permanent basis, while defensive regulars form last year - Hunt, Frost and Wagner - have all been jettisoned from the team. 

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

Establishing a role-based methodology with personnel understudies and a one-in-one-out capacity is great in a general regard, but you can't expect to replace Lever with J. Smith in such a finely-balanced system, and you can't have the inexperienced and ungelled Omac and Petty alongside him as your three tall prongs . 

The defensive game-plan needs a serious rethink due to Lever's absence, or otherwise the reintroduction  of more experienced and familiar players in this form of defence in order to carry it out. I don't expect the former, so the latter has to include Tmac as a real consideration - however damned much it hurts. 

The current path isn't the one we cultivated when we originally set out the plan. We now have to back-track if we're going to figure a way forward in the less than half of a season still left to do so. 

[Lucifers Hero 38,985]

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

As posted elsewhere, we've conceded ten goals less this year than at the same stage last year. However, we've quickly gone backwards without Lever's increasingly growing presence. 

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals. The idea is simply to leak a little less the best that we can manage: small margins tipping the offensive/defensive ledger in our favour. 

The problem as I see it, it's a tentative and difficult plan to execute requiring a high level of familiarity and defensive cohesion. This is one of the reasons we recruited Lever - among the strongest intercept and organisational players in the league.

That also then freed up Tmac (our previous best intercept defender) to move forward on a permanent basis, while defensive regulars form last year - Hunt, Frost and Wagner - have all been jettisoned from the team. 

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

Establishing a role-based methodology with personnel understudies and a one-in-one-out capacity is great in a general regard, but you can't expect to replace Lever with J. Smith in such a finely-balanced system, and you can't have the inexperienced and ungelled Omac and Petty alongside him as your three tall prongs . 

The defensive game-plan needs a serious rethink due to Lever's absence, or otherwise the reintroduction  of more experienced and familiar players in this form of defence in order to carry it out. I don't expect the former, so the latter has to include Tmac as a real consideration - however damned much it hurts. 

The current path isn't the one we cultivated when we originally set out the plan. We now have to back-track if we're going to figure a way forward in the less than half of a season still left to do so. 

An excellent post.  Perfect summary of the issues.  These warrant repeating: 

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals...it's a tentative and difficult plan to execute requiring a high level of familiarity and defensive cohesion. 

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

Lever went down in round 12.  In round 13 Oscar was concussed and sat out the last quarter and hasn't been the same since.  Nev hurt his shoulder also in round 13.  In round 14 Nev had a serious head knock, was very wobbly and hurt his ankle so was touch and go to play last week.  Both are playing a long way below their best.

To expect 2 injured players, 2 over 30 players, 1 fit AA player and Smith to defend a game-plan that is very highly tuned vs Port (rnd 14) was unrealistic. But to then add Petty (rnd 15) and remove a very experienced player in a very depleted defense, was sheer folly.

Realistically, no game-plan should be dependent on one player and nor should it be so inflexible that when a key player goes out that it is not adjusted.  Why we insist on being so rigid with a game-plan that is high risk, easily defeated and very taxing on players is beyond me. 

I totally agree we need to back track on something.  I'm torn between:

1)Tom Mc going down back because our forward line structures are breaking down and players seem confused on positioning, running patterns and what their roles are (eg all going for pack marks, all in for the contest). We will be robbing 'Peter to pay Paul'.  He is also playing under an injury cloud with bruised lungs.  

2) Changing the game-plan to have less risk and more suited to the players selected.  I would hope that at some stage we have practiced a game-plan for this scenario

Certainly a more defensive forward line and midfield will help but it is a very taxing game-plan and it will be very difficult to sustain it in Darwin conditions without damaging our chances the following week.  So, I'm hoping for option 2) and hoping for healthier Oscar, Nev and Tom. 

Lever going down has hurt but it has been our response to Lever going down that has done the real damage.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[John Crow Batty 8,787]

Poor form from some key forwards and poor forward/mid defensive play has nothing to do with Lever’s absence. We are still getting the ball inside 50 in vast numbers and letting it get out too quickly thus putting any defence under severe pressure when the ball is coming out.  

Edited July 4, 2018 by america de cali

[SFebes 4,860]

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

As posted elsewhere, we've conceded ten goals less this year than at the same stage last year. However, we've quickly gone backwards without Lever's increasingly growing presence. 

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals. The idea is simply to leak a little less the best that we can manage: small margins tipping the offensive/defensive ledger in our favour. 

The problem as I see it, it's a tentative and difficult plan to execute requiring a high level of familiarity and defensive cohesion. This is one of the reasons we recruited Lever - among the strongest intercept and organisational players in the league.

That also then freed up Tmac (our previous best intercept defender) to move forward on a permanent basis, while defensive regulars form last year - Hunt, Frost and Wagner - have all been jettisoned from the team. 

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

Establishing a role-based methodology with personnel understudies and a one-in-one-out capacity is great in a general regard, but you can't expect to replace Lever with J. Smith in such a finely-balanced system, and you can't have the inexperienced and ungelled Omac and Petty alongside him as your three tall prongs . 

The defensive game-plan needs a serious rethink due to Lever's absence, or otherwise the reintroduction  of more experienced and familiar players in this form of defence in order to carry it out. I don't expect the former, so the latter has to include Tmac as a real consideration - however damned much it hurts. 

The current path isn't the one we cultivated when we originally set out the plan. We now have to back-track if we're going to figure a way forward in the less than half of a season still left to do so. 

While 10 goals less is only 0.71 per game (or 4.3 points) and there is no doubt we are missing Lever but we were winning games without him and Tmac forward. IMO we need an experienced KPD, but the crux of the issue is defensive pressure from the midfield, seeing those clips from Sunday shows how lazy they are, or should I say, frontrunners. Also last year we leaked easy goals out the back so it's a structural/zone/coaching issue also not to mention laziness. You're right though, we need a defensive re-think, Lewis not getting any younger or quicker either. Hunt and Frost were a part of last years defence when Tmac went forward also.

Edited July 4, 2018 by SFebey

[SFebes 4,860]

30 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

An excellent post.  Perfect summary of the issues.  These warrant repeating: 

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals...it's a tentative and difficult plan to execute requiring a high level of familiarity and defensive cohesion. 

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

Lever went down in round 12.  In round 13 Oscar was concussed and sat out the last quarter and hasn't been the same since.  Nev hurt his shoulder also in round 13.  In round 14 Nev had a serious head knock, was very wobbly and hurt his ankle so was touch and go to play last week.  Both are playing a long way below their best.

To expect 2 injured players, 2 over 30 players, 1 fit AA player and Smith to defend a game-plan that is very highly tuned vs Port (rnd 14) was unrealistic. But to then add Petty (rnd 15) and remove a very experienced player in a very depleted defense, was sheer folly.

Realistically, no game-plan should be dependent on one player and nor should it be so inflexible that when a key player goes out that it is not adjusted.  Why we insist on being so rigid with a game-plan that is high risk, easily defeated and very taxing on players is beyond me. 

I totally agree we need to back track on something.  I'm torn between:

1)Tom Mc going down back because our forward line structures are breaking down and players seem confused on positioning, running patterns and what their roles are (eg all going for pack marks, all in for the contest). We will be robbing 'Peter to pay Paul'.  He is also playing under an injury cloud with bruised lungs.  

2) Changing the game-plan to have less risk and more suited to the players selected.  I would hope that at some stage we have practiced a game-plan for this scenario

Certainly a more defensive forward line and midfield will help but it is a very taxing game-plan and it will be very difficult to sustain it in Darwin conditions without damaging our chances the following week.  So, I'm hoping for option 2) and hoping for healthier Oscar, Nev and Tom. 

Lever going down has hurt but it has been our response to Lever going down that has done the real damage.

It might be as simple as bringing in an "experienced KPD" in Sam Frost, like last year, then Tmac can stay forward. But mids still need to defend better, they're happy running into forward 50 for an easy goal but lazy to keep it in there

Edited July 4, 2018 by SFebey

[Deemania since 56 6,562]

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

The game-plan is the game-plan - we're a highly offensive team and we're going to leak goals. The idea is simply to leak a little less the best that we can manage: small margins tipping the offensive/defensive ledger in our favour. 

...but that leakage is still just not good enough! There should be virtually no leakage - particularly in close, forcing long-shots from the opposition rather than easy feeds.

[drdrake 3,124]

Lever has made our coaches, mids and forwards defensively lazy.  Looks like to me we add Lever and we change our our game style to be more attacking knowing we have a gun key defender down back.  The issue early in the season Lever was finding his feet, when he did we looked good, then injury comes and it has stuffed us up.

Make no mistake this is a coaching issue called putting all eggs in one basket.  All the defensive traits Roos tried to teach our players thrown out the door.

Don't be sucked in this weekend, we will beat the Dockers, it will hide the issues until the Bulldogs get us the following week, then a massive downhill slide till the end of the season.  We will finish with 10-12 wins with really 1 injured player

[Engorged Onion 10,137]

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

But with Lever going down, we're now trying to plug gaps or rebuild with inexperienced 'role' players rather than reset according to individual strengths - with not enough consideration for the difficulty of our set-up and need for maturity and cohesion.

I take your point @Skuit -measured as always. 

My take is that the coaching staff (of all clubs) when they are implementing a new style/or a game plan, understand that it is a long game  - over the course of many many seasons (exceptions would be the Bulldogs, but that was because they were able to throw the ball a lot...).

I am sure maturity and cohesion is a consideration based on new personnel coming in - but the realty is (and is most definately being sacrificed)- you can only put on the park the people who you think will fit into your game plan...long term, not just for a few games in 2018 to scrape through to finals...Eg: I would presume rightly or wrongly Frost's papers are marked and that Goodwin does not see him either able to execute the plan down the line, hence blooding Smith and Petty... 

The staff are playing a long game - Supporters want the gratification now in 2018 understandably - but the FD's selections due to Levers abscence sets us up for personnel who can execute game plans in the early to mid 20's onwards for sustained success...

Personally, I am accepting that we will have  to cop some hits along the way when integrating new personnel into the system at AFL level/speed - with the assumption (and it's only that) that the Gameplan is workable in the cauldron of finals...but it takes exposure and time together to get that cohesion...

I get that others may not, and that a loss or numerous losses irrespective of context, means that they are  anxious that its the same old Dee's... 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Danelska

[Lucifers Hero 38,985]

1 hour ago, Danelska said:

I take your point @Skuit -measured as always. 

My take is that the coaching staff (of all clubs) when they are implementing a new style/or a game plan, understand that it is a long game  - over the course of many many seasons (exceptions would be the Bulldogs, but that was because they were able to throw the ball a lot...).

I am sure maturity and cohesion is a consideration based on new personnel coming in - but the realty is (and is most definately being sacrificed)- you can only put on the park the people who you think will fit into your game plan...long term, not just for a few games in 2018 to scrape through to finals...Eg: I would presume rightly or wrongly Frost's papers are marked and that Goodwin does not see him either able to execute the plan down the line, hence blooding Smith and Petty... 

The staff are playing a long game - Supporters want the gratification now in 2018 understandably - but the FD's selections due to Levers abscence sets us up for personnel who can execute game plans in the early to mid 20's onwards for sustained success...

Another very good post.

Is it not possible to play the long game (strategy) but still have short-term adjustments (tactics) in the game-plan for a change in conditions?  I'm all for blooding Smith and Petty in Lever's absence.  My issue is doing that simultaneously while two other key defenders are restricted by recent injuries and while our forward line isn't functioning well. 

I feel there needs to be a balance between the long game and the short term.  There are a lot of stakeholders (sponsors, board, future members, FTA broadcasting opportunities, government ie new facilities, player morale) to consider before we risk 2018 for the long-game. 

We really need a good outcome in 2018 to get some decent FTA and venue/time slots next year and for all stakeholders not just supporters.

Edit:  As an aside, Goodwin's contract runs out next year.  Ideally, it is renewed this year or in the off season.  Otherwise, in 2019 he will be coaching for his next contract.  I have little doubt he will be re-contracted (even with Pert as CEO) but it would be much better for everyone if it happens sooner than later.  It is more likely to be sooner, if 2018 is successful (especially, in the Board's eyes).  President and some other Board members are up for re-election this year so they are under pressure as well and need a successful 2018. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

It's funny this has been identified, even though he was struggling earlier in the year. 

It still points to a gaping hole and weakness that is our key position stocks. Had we not landed Lever, I wonder where we'd be sitting now. 

Why have we chosen against bringing in a mature aged key defender since Dunn left? It is truly baffling that posters think 'we're fine' without one. 

It's astounding. Many stats hint to this area of weakness. 

Give me a key defender that will give aggression at the contest and make a genuine impact whenever the ball is in their area. The rest should be developing at VFL. 

If we don't have a crack at May I'll be livid. It's fine to have faith in young players, (Oscar). But why are we just assuming that these guys are going to improve in a linear way every year? Circumstances always change. Whether it's injury, form or anything else. 

The club needs to do something about this. I want a mature aged defender. I want reliability. And I want those younger guys to develop at VFL level like the rest of our younger mids and forwards, (Weideman, Brayshaw) have done because of depth in those lines. 

There's zero accountability from the club on this. It's the same with our ruck stocks. One injury to Max and watch what happens. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by stevethemanjordan

[tiers 2,810]

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

Poor form from some key forwards and poor forward/mid defensive play has nothing to do with Lever’s absence. We are still getting the ball inside 50 in vast numbers and letting it get out too quickly thus putting any defence under severe pressure when the ball is coming out.   

Correct. It's the failures in our forward line.

Our defence is leaky but if we could find a way to convert from the multitude of inside 50s then it would not be an issue. Against cats, power and saints we dominated this stat and still lost. I recall a similar fate against toasters last year. It might be that with Lever playing the wastage in the forward line would be even worse as we would get it in more often.

It has been an ongoing problem for a long time and we seem to be unable to address it. I have raised this issue numerous times and no matter whether Jesse plays deep or upfield, whether TMac is around, whether Jeffy is switched on or whether any combination of Hannan, Kent, Spargo, Tracca is on the field, the ball comes out as quickly as it goes in. If you have doubts, watch cats replay.

The current paradigm is that defences win finals. No doubt they do but unless we can get value from our defensive work to push the ball forward, retain the ball inside the forward line and score more consistently, it will not matter even if we have an abundance of Levers in defence.

Goals, goals , goals.