POSTMATCH DISCUSSION - Round 18

[rjay 24,046]

17 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

We lacked experience around the ball when the heat was really on, and with almost a thousand games of experience between Dangerflop, Duckwood and the Bald Eagle, they got on top.  If anything the issue was through the midfield, not our defence.

I get what you are saying 'Wise' but the back 6 is our glass jaw.

The Swans for example when playing well could take a lot of heat in their back half and not give up on the scoreboard. Ours leaks like a sieve when it gets in there.

No Hibberd or Lever...having Bernie, Jordan & Nev, the only leg speed being Frost and a first year player basically as the 3rd man up.

The loss of form & now injury of Hunt is also a big loss. We can't afford to carry the other 3 in the same backline (Bernie, Jordan & Nev). I mean Menzal is as slow as treacle but found way too much time and space.

[binman 39,083]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

You can disagree all you like. The fact is they doubled their goals in the last quarter. We are defensively weak.

What do you mean defensively weak? Are you referring to our defenders or our all ground defensive pressure?

[forever demons 1,878]

i agree with jnr we lack a defensive attitude not just the the back six     but the forward line must         become defensive to hold the ball in our half

 

[jnrmac 19,323]

1 hour ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Yep no worries Im just making excuses.

I"ll take the petulant child approach like others (not you) and it will mean I am not an apologist who accepts mediocrity.

Saying we haven't beaten a top side is another cop out and just something convenient to fall back on and again say the factd are there.  Last year we beat several top 8 sides but lost to many cellar dwellers.

Collingwood haven't beaten anyone either but they are a good side. Sydney have beaten Meth Coast twice the Cats away and I don't see them as any better than us.

You should read what you write. Its hardly a cop out. Its fact. And until we fix our defence we won't get anywhere consistently.

[Jaded No More 59,109]

2 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Who was going to ruck the boundary throw in when Gawn went off if you are sending T-Mac back. 

Brayshaw should have quietly nominated himself. Made sure Dangerfield blocked him. Free kick. Bam we win the game... 

Yep I’m still salty about that one!

[DemonOX 8,551]

2 hours ago, sue said:

I hope the club at least whinges to the AFL about the lack of 50 penalty.  FCS you can get a 50 for gently pushing a player a bit too late after a mark. 

The Cats forward appeared to try and shove Fritsch in the chest, instead catching him in the face in what was a clumsy incident. However, the Demon was fine and able to take his kick.

I really hate geelong. 

1. Hope we make finals

2. Hope we meet Geelong in the first round 

3. Hope we beat those [censored] and stick it right up em  

They are a bunch of sooks and cry babies. 

[chook fowler 18,392]

6 hours ago, SPC said:

We are a weak club.. not much has changed.. other clubs know it.

on a a side note, had a bad motorcycle accident Saturday and needed the win. Loss broke my heart 

It sort of matches the car crash that was our last quarter.

Hope you are ok 

[forever demons 1,878]

hope you are ok spc,lost a bit of skin over the years

[Dr. Gonzo 22,624]

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

After watching the game again, I noticed another thing that helped cause our loss, weak leadership. 

Look who stood up for the Cats, Danger, Ablett, Hawkins and Selwood. When the game needed to be won they stood up and led. 

With us, who of our leaders stood up? Who led the way? Who directed the others? Who took the mark or laid the tackle or made the hard gut run to set the example and/ or create the game winning/ saving piece of the play?

I think our leaders were merely observers. We lack quality leadership. 

I think our issue in this situation is that our leaders are older and past their prime while our young guys are capable but still immature/lack composure. I have great faith in the young group of guys though, Max is probably the oldest of that lot and he was off the ground for key chunks of time in the last quarter. TMac too but he was stuck down one end while the ball was pinging from the centre to the other end. Our mids are all still young, Viney would've been handy as he was against WCE last year.

[Moonshadow 16,409]

Anyone notice how much space Lewis gave Menzel on the wing with 30 sec to go? Would it [censored] hurt to man up defensively in the dying seconds and not give the guy 30m space to receive and set up a training drill goal?

For all that Lewis does well (and he does do many things very well) his turn overs, fall overs and lack of accountability at critical times costs us dearly every week.

Lewis in circle on the left, Menzel on right next to umpire:

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moonshadow

[Dr. Gonzo 22,624]

8 hours ago, highroller said:

the thing that screwed us isn't the Petracca bomb it was Brayshaw handballing in the last 30-40 seconds - if he goes to ground and causes a stoppage we win - even if he gets pinged their isn't enough time for them.

Failing this the other option to save the game was OMac when he is running back with Tomahawk through the centre of the ground, he knows he is outpositioned and Tomahawk will mark it so giving away a free kick where he actually brings Tomahawk to ground would save the game as well. He has to reset stand up again etc would have been enough to win it for us

OMac did something similar against Port and gave away a 50 which led to the sealer for Port.

[Demonsone 1,665]

Listened too Roosy on the couch...Basically team has not balanced out when to go & when to defend, very odd though & one  would think that with only a few minutes to go the players would automatically have defence on their mindset??

The script continues with Harmes suffering a broken hand & the injury list continues, the jinx  curse continues!

 

 

[Roost It 1,434]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

You should read what you write. Its hardly a cop out. Its fact. And until we fix our defence we won't get anywhere consistently.

Our defence will be fixed when Lever, Hibberd, Hunt and Viney are fit and in form

[Roost It 1,434]

8 hours ago, highroller said:

the thing that screwed us isn't the Petracca bomb it was Brayshaw handballing in the last 30-40 seconds - if he goes to ground and causes a stoppage we win - even if he gets pinged their isn't enough time for them.

Failing this the other option to save the game was OMac when he is running back with Tomahawk through the centre of the ground, he knows he is outpositioned and Tomahawk will mark it so giving away a free kick where he actually brings Tomahawk to ground would save the game as well. He has to reset stand up again etc would have been enough to win it for us

So give Hawkins a 50 and let him kick the winner. 

[Satyriconhome 10,010]

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You forgot trolls. They are everywhere, aren't they chap? 

I like trolls, that's why i am answering you, thanks for the heads up on the omission 

[binman 39,083]

3 hours ago, binman said:

What do you mean defensively weak? Are you referring to our defenders or our all ground defensive pressure?

In the absence of an answer, if you mean the latter i agree. Goodwin said as much after the saints game. Our poor all ground pressure, drop of in intensity, lack of spread and gut run to cover players on the outside was poor in that game and is the cause of of many patches where we get scored on heavily. Saturday night was yet another example.

But i suspect you are referring to the former. I agree that with lever and Hibberd out our back line is down on quality. That is not surprising given the quality of those two players. But the real issue with them out, particularly Lever is we don't have an intercept player and our structure and system is designed around having one. 

OMac is slow across the ground, no doubt, and Hawkins exposed this on a couple of occasions. He was also beaten one on one a few times - unsurprising given the experience and weight differential. The lack of an intercept defender magnified these issues.

Jetta's failure to spoil Tuohy on that last play, having been left to compete one on one was a good example of the problems caused by a lack of an intercept player. A Lever or Hibberd, as someone pointed out, would have got to that contest (its interesting that Jetts has received no heat on DL for this failure - i guess people understand there was a weight differential, he was left one on one, no one came across to help - or filled the hole - the ball was kicked under no pressure and to Tuohy's advantage).

But i say again the defensive unit is not the problem - well not nearly as big a problem as you seem to believe. I doubt i am going to convince you of this but perhaps there are some who are swayed by your argument that i can convince to see things more clearly.

Let's say you are right and the defensive unit is largely responsible for giving up 8 goals in the last quarter. By that logic they can therefore take much of the credit for only conceding 8 goals in the preceding 3 quarters. But in reality they can't.

Sure the back line unit functioned pretty well but the real reason we held them to 8 goals was our all ground pressure was incredible, our gut running to cover outlets unrelenting, we won the contested ball, we won the centre clearance battle, our forward 50 pressure was soild and our high press worked a treat.

So what happened?

Stats can be misleading, but in this case the numbers don't lie. in the last quarter the Cats won consented ball 18-10, smashed us in center clearances (8-1) and perhaps most significantly of all beat us 61-37 in uncontested possession which suggests we stopped gut running and spreading to stop them moving it quickly, rendering our press useless and exposing our back line.

The last play was the perfect illustration of the point i am making. They were able to bring the ball up from our 50 to theirs almost under no pressure. Duncan run and carries and under no pressure hit Hawkins who gives off to Menzel (i think) who is also under no pressure, who weights a beautiful kick to Tuohy who out marks Jetts. By your logic Jnr, Jetts is to blame for that mark. He is defender after all and it is his job to stop his opponent marking the ball. But does anyone seriously blame Jetts? I don't think so.

Do we get scored on too easily at times. Yes. But getting the cause wrong only leads to the wrong mitigation strategies and solutions. I am pretty confident goody and his team are not going to fall into that trap.

Edited July 23, 2018 by binman

[DubDee 21,264]

Watched on the couch and they dissected the last minute if the game. Could not believe what I saw- on Geelong final attack, Frost leaves Hawkins in the corridor and runs towards the ball!! Hawkins is on his own in the middle of the ground and marks and sets up the winner. 

I can forgive skill errors but when you are on their gun fwd with 30 seconds left it defies believe that frost leave him. 

Droppable offence imo even though he beat Hawkins a couple of times. If frost stayed on him and spoiled the ball we most likely win

[Demonsone 1,665]

The great Norm Smith said .....

You play Football to play & win premierships! 

'Weak men can't win premierships'

[In Harmes Way 7,613]

Gees I’d hate to be an AFL player.

Lose a game and the experts pull you apart on the couch in a comfy studio with the benefit of slow mo replay taken from an elevated camera without the sounds of the game/oppo players or vision from the perspective of the player involved.

Our defenders make a split decision based on their experience, or direction from team mates, and don’t always get it right - but I can see why some are coming down with mental health issues.

I hope they learn lessons in consult with our coaches and continue to back themselves in, even if they do get it wrong.

I hope they don’t watch this [censored] on TV.

[titan_uranus 22,751]

8 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Generally I think our strategy was reasonable in the last quarter, we tried to win the game and 3.5 to 8.0 is just a freak outcome.  Stacking the backline and trying to hold on is not the way to win - we managed to level the momentum in the mid part of the quarter and keep scoring - if JKH kicks the goal we win.  Yes we could have switched OMac and Frost a play or two earlier.  The real problem was further up the ground - we were getting killed at the stoppages - Ablett 14 possession in the last.

Specifically in the last two minutes, I think Petracca's torp was a reasonable play, he went deep down the line to an even contest and got the ball OOB inside our 50.  I also don't think Jeffy did the wrong thing either, his kick went towards the top of the square again to an even contest, he didn't have a wild ping.  Suggestions that he should have taken it OOB are ridiculous, he would've been pinged for sure.  Bernie's spoil back into the 50 was a decent play as well - that's where we like to lock it in.

I think there were three big factors, one out of our control and two in our control:

1. Max having to go off - at the boundary stoppage after Trac's torp TMac is telling Max to go back deep and he'll take the ruck but Max has blood and has to go off.  If Max is deep it's unlikely Geelong marks that last play.
2. Lewis giving Menzel too much rope on the wing.  I don't know the full team rules and Lewis was guarding the corridor but surely that's man-on-man time, he was miles off Menzel and knows he doesn't have the closing speed to make a contest.
3. No-one running with Duncan from our forward 50 when he receives the handball from Hawkins - someone just had to go with him.

I think there's great learning opportunity out of this loss, like the loss against St.Kilda - issues were exposed that cannot be ignored

Agree largely with this post, except I think Vince's play was as big a mistake as all of them.

He spoiled Melksham, who was the only player able to mark it. Leave Melksham to mark it, he marks it, we most likely win. Melksham could have had a shot from there and used up 30 seconds.

The idea of smashing it forward might not be altogether awful, but that ball was in the air long enough for him to be able to see that it was a Melbourne player in front of him, not a Geelong player.

3 hours ago, rjay said:

I get what you are saying 'Wise' but the back 6 is our glass jaw.

The Swans for example when playing well could take a lot of heat in their back half and not give up on the scoreboard. Ours leaks like a sieve when it gets in there.

No Hibberd or Lever...having Bernie, Jordan & Nev, the only leg speed being Frost and a first year player basically as the 3rd man up.

The loss of form & now injury of Hunt is also a big loss. We can't afford to carry the other 3 in the same backline (Bernie, Jordan & Nev). I mean Menzal is as slow as treacle but found way too much time and space.

Well with no Lever or Hibberd that's not completely surprising.

But as @binman quite well points out below, the problem isn't our back six. It's our defensive game across the entire ground from all 18 of them out there.

8 minutes ago, binman said:

In the absence of an answer, if you mean the latter i agree. Goodwin said as much after the saints game. Our poor all ground pressure, drop of in intensity, lack of spread and gut run to cover players on the outside was poor in that game and is the cause of of many patches where we get scored on heavily. Saturday night was yet another example.

But i suspect you are referring to the former. I agree that with lever and Hibberd out our back line is down on quality. That is not surprising given the quality of those two players. But the real issue with them out, particularly Lever is we don't have an intercept player and our structure and system is designed around having one. 

OMac is slow across the ground, no doubt, and Hawkins exposed this on a couple of occasions. He was also beaten one on one a few times - unsurprising given the experience and weight differential. The lack of an intercept defender magnified these issues.

Jetta's failure to spoil Tuohy on that last play, having been left to compete one on one was a good example of the problems caused by a lack of an intercept player. A Lever or Hibberd, as someone pointed out, would have got to that contest (its interesting that Jetts has received no heat on DL for this failure - i guess people understand there was a weight differential, he was left one on one, no one came across to help - or filled the hole - the ball was kicked under no pressure and to Tuohy's advantage).

But i say again the defensive unit is not the problem - well not nearly as big a problem as you seem to believe. I doubt i am going to convince you of this but perhaps there are some who are swayed by your argument that i can convince to see things more clearly.

Let's say you are right and the defensive unit is largely responsible for giving up 8 goals in the last quarter. By that logic they can therefore take much of the credit for only conceding 8 goals in the preceding 3 quarters. But in reality they can't.

Sure the back line unit functioned pretty well but the real reason we held them to 8 goals was our all ground pressure was incredible, our gut running to cover outlets unrelenting, we won the contested ball, we won the centre clearance battle, our forward 50 pressure was soild and our high press worked a treat.

So what happened?

Stats can be misleading, but in this case the numbers don't lie. in the last quarter the Cats won consented ball 18-10, smashed us in center clearances (8-1) and perhaps most significantly of all beat us 61-37 in uncontested possession which suggests we stopped gut running and spreading to stop them moving it quickly, rendering our press useless and exposing our back line.

The last play was the perfect illustration of the point i am making. They were able to bring the ball up from our 50 to theirs almost under no pressure. Duncan run and carries and under no pressure hit Hawkins who gives off to Menzel (i think) who is also under no pressure, who weights a beautiful kick to Tuohy who out marks Jetts. By your logic Jnr, Jetts is to blame for that mark. He is defender after all and it is his job to stop his opponent marking the ball. But does anyone seriously blame Jetts? I don't think so.

Do we get scored on too easily at times. Yes. But getting the cause wrong only leads to the wrong mitigation strategies and solutions. I am pretty confident goody and his team are not going to fall into that trap.

Great post.

This is a proper analysis of why we concede too many goals too easily.

Funnily enough, our ratio of goals conceded from inside 50s conceded was lower than it has been in previous weeks. Against St Kilda it was 58%. Port was 51%. Against Fremantle, 46%. 33% against the Dogs, then 40% against Geelong.

So in the last fortnight we've actually improved on the "leaking" of the back six. But that isn't just the back six improving, it's the improved defensive running (which was abysmal against the Saints). It's the better press, the harder work from the half-forwards, the stronger midfield. 

[Demonsone 1,665]

7 minutes ago, small but forward said:

Gees I’d hate to be an AFL player.

Lose a game and the experts pull you apart on the couch in a comfy studio with the benefit of slow mo replay taken from an elevated camera without the sounds of the game/oppo players or vision from the perspective of the player involved.

Our defenders make a split decision based on their experience, or direction from team mates, and don’t always get it right - but I can see why some are coming down with mental health issues.

I hope they learn lessons in consult with our coaches and continue to back themselves in, even if they do get it wrong.

I hope they don’t watch this [censored] on TV.

Agree somewhat, however Roosy is an expert & our most recent coach who would know our game plan & the 1% required in a close games!

Reality is we have conceded too many goals

[rjay 24,046]

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

But as @binman quite well points out below, the problem isn't our back six. It's our defensive game across the entire ground from all 18 of them out there.

Understand all that 'titan' but the mix in the back 6 is still a problem...

[binman 39,083]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

Understand all that 'titan' but the mix in the back 6 is still a problem...

Well that's because 3 of our best defenders are out injured. So hardly surprising the mix is an issue is it?

[titan_uranus 22,751]

Just now, rjay said:

Understand all that 'titan' but the mix in the back 6 is still a problem...

As I said, no Lever, no Hibberd, and an injured and out of form Hunt are all contributing to the "mix" being out.

But my view remains that even with Alex Rance in OMac's position, we'd have been conceding those goals to Hawkins.

Rance is obviously a better player than OMac but he also plays in a system which gives him far more support, both in the defensive 50 and up the ground. 

We know this has been a focus since Goodwin called us out on it at the St Kilda press conference. Since then, our two-way running and overall team defence has improved and the rate at which sides score against us has decreased.

We conceded 8 goals in 3 quarters at Kardinia Park, from 34 inside 50s (that's less than 25% scoring rate when they went inside, down from 68% against St Kilda). If the back six were the problem, I'd argue that rate would have been much higher all game. The entire side weakened for 15 minutes in the fourth quarter and A-graders (Ablett, Hawkins, Dangerfield, Duncan, Tuohy) stepped up, and they scored 5 goals in quick succession. I'd argue that's far more consistent with the team defence being critical to our success, not the back six themselves (who held up when the side played properly, as it should, for 3 quarters).

[rjay 24,046]

5 hours ago, rjay said:

I get what you are saying 'Wise' but the back 6 is our glass jaw.

The Swans for example when playing well could take a lot of heat in their back half and not give up on the scoreboard. Ours leaks like a sieve when it gets in there.

No Hibberd or Lever...having Bernie, Jordan & Nev, the only leg speed being Frost and a first year player basically as the 3rd man up.

The loss of form & now injury of Hunt is also a big loss. We can't afford to carry the other 3 in the same backline (Bernie, Jordan & Nev). I mean Menzal is as slow as treacle but found way too much time and space.

 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

As I said, no Lever, no Hibberd, and an injured and out of form Hunt are all contributing to the "mix" being out.

 But my view remains that even with Alex Rance in OMac's position, we'd have been conceding those goals to Hawkins.

Rance is obviously a better player than OMac but he also plays in a system which gives him far more support, both in the defensive 50 and up the ground. 

We know this has been a focus since Goodwin called us out on it at the St Kilda press conference. Since then, our two-way running and overall team defence has improved and the rate at which sides score against us has decreased.

We conceded 8 goals in 3 quarters at Kardinia Park, from 34 inside 50s (that's less than 25% scoring rate when they went inside, down from 68% against St Kilda). If the back six were the problem, I'd argue that rate would have been much higher all game. The entire side weakened for 15 minutes in the fourth quarter and A-graders (Ablett, Hawkins, Dangerfield, Duncan, Tuohy) stepped up, and they scored 5 goals in quick succession. I'd argue that's far more consistent with the team defence being critical to our success, not the back six themselves (who held up when the side played properly, as it should, for 3 quarters).

I think that's what I said 'titan'.

...it leaves us very susceptible.