POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 21

[SFebes 4,884]

Stats are useless unless you read them in the right way, David King is the perfect example of this. For eg what's the point of winning contested possession when you have 3 going at the ball and leaving 2-3 opposition players free to take away the spilled ball. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by MSFebey

[Dr. Gonzo 24,190]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Really? The game plan is working? Was it the game plan to:

- to let Sydney score 7 goals in a row? Or 6 goals each in the 2nd and 3rd quarters?

- or let Sydney with 2 men down control the ball and smash us in uncontested marks because we were too lazy to close them down or control the ball ourselves?

- continually kick the ball to Aliir?

- let Heeney sit unattended in the backline during the last quarter and clean up every ball that came his way?

- let Geelong score 80 points in the first half of round 1 with 20 scoring shots from 24 entries into their fwd 50?

- win the i50 count against Hawthorn and lose by 63pts?

- get 5 i50s against the Tigers in the 2nd qtr and turn a 12 pt lead into a 20 pt deficit?

- let an average player like Mason Cox kick 5 goals?

- to win the i50 count against Port by 30. Yes 30! And still lose the game?

- to smash St Kilda by 12 in the i50s yet lose the game?

- to smash Geelong in the i50 count by 12 and lose the game?

As I said. It is irrefutable that the game plan doesn't work against the top sides.

Bombing the ball inside 50 to win the i50 count is fools gold. Great you are happy with it but I find it infuriating because we will never go anywhere when we can't defend or stop teams getting a run on.

5 games lost by 10 points or less will be held up high by some as proof we are doing things right ('oh that's what happened to the Tigers last year'). That stat hides a huge amount of rubbish football where we let teams get run ons and kick 5, 6 or 7 goals in a row.

The game plan sucks. You can find excuses for every one of the games we have lost against top sides. But they are just that, excuses. We repeat the same stupid mistakes time and time again when under pressure. 

We kicked 1.6 in the 2nd quarter vs the Swans, they kicked 6.1. Is the inaccuracy the fault of the gameplan when players are missing regulation shots at goal?

We lost round 1 due to a miskick by Gawn, again from a regulation set shot. Did things change between the first half and the second? They outscored us early, we outscored them late. The game went down to the wire. Games are played over 4 quarters not 20 minutes.

We have an issue with our conversion once inside 50 but that issue was not the fault of the coach or gameplan on Sunday, it was the fault of our players missing regulation set shots and losing the game.

There are 3 games this year we have been clear losers, Haw, Rich and Coll. We outplayed Hawks in Q1 and did not take advantage of our dominance. Richmond kicked away in the last and Collingwood dominated the game. The Saints game was 50/50, they were the better team on the day but they were also gifted 4 or 5 goals from 50s and soft free kicks. We still should've won but it was a factor.

Teams will outplay us on occasions. But if you're ranting against the coach and demanding he change the gameplan and take responsibility for all our losses perhaps take a step back and have a look at all the factors which impacted those results instead of cherry picking stats. I can understand if people think we should be creating more scoring opportunities but I don't understand people arguing that we are not creating enough scoring opportunities when in all but 3 games this year that has not been the case.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,190]

8 hours ago, jnrmac said:

 

Faith

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

1.  

What is your solution? Sack the coach?

Edited August 15, 2018 by george_on_the_outer
Poster abuse

[binman 42,681]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Its pretty simple. When people ignore the causes of our issues then nothing will change. The first step in trying to solve a problem is recognising you have one and developing a plan to fix it. 

I 100% agree with the quoted text. I have in fact posted something almost exactly the same in recent weeks.

Using a medical metaphor the critical thing in designing a treatment plan is getting the diagnoses right and treating the cause not the symptoms.

Stretching the metaphor a bit, if i was patient showing symptom of an illness i would not want you as my Doctor. 

[praha 11,236]

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Missing a set shot from 30m out directly in front has nothing to do with physical pressure applied by the opposition. The gameplan is in place to create scoring opportunities. If the players miss a plethora of easy opportunities as they did Sunday how is that the fault of the gameplan/coach?

Good question. I didn't say it was the fault of the gameplay or coach

 

[jnrmac 20,055]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What is your solution? Sack the coach?

I have never called for that. BUt I do believe he has his head in the sand on certain issues where we keep repeating the same thing over and over. 

On Saturday they were 2 down. It doesn't take a genious to work out their strategy is to play keepings off as they can control the tempo and hence how tired they get running. Exactly what our strategy should have been.

Added to that was the blind kicking to Aliir and being one man down in the fwd line  at centre bounces. Now Goodwin is not telling them to kick to Aliir but we kept doing it and he needs to do something to change that. Ditto with Heeney running riot by himself in the last. 

Goodwin has shown he can change things up at half time as he has done a number if times this year. But our stock game plan doesn't work against good sides that defend well and put pressure on us..I have said for a long time that our game won't stack up in finals so whats the point. We all want a sustainable solution that will hold us in good stead when it matters. Not when we are playing the 5 bottom sides.

I think its pretty clear we need a better balance between attack and defence. We have kicked something like 30 goals more than the next team. And we may miss finals.

Its maddening when Goodwin won't or can't effect change.

 

[old dee 23,781]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I have never called for that. BUt I do believe he has his head in the sand on certain issues where we keep repeating the same thing over and over. 

On Saturday they were 2 down. It doesn't take a genious to work out their strategy is to play keepings off as they can control the tempo and hence how tired they get running. Exactly what our strategy should have been.

Added to that was the blind kicking to Aliir and being one man down in the fwd line  at centre bounces. Now Goodwin is not telling them to kick to Aliir but we kept doing it and he needs to do something to change that. Ditto with Heeney running riot by himself in the last. 

Goodwin has shown he can change things up at half time as he has done a number if times this year. But our stock game plan doesn't work against good sides that defend well and put pressure on us..I have said for a long time that our game won't stack up in finals so whats the point. We all want a sustainable solution that will hold us in good stead when it matters. Not when we are playing the 5 bottom sides.

I think its pretty clear we need a better balance between attack and defence. We have kicked something like 30 goals more than the next team. And we may miss finals.

Its maddening when Goodwin won't or can't effect change.

 

Cannot disagree with too much of that Jr. Spot on from my view

[binman 42,681]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We kicked 1.6 in the 2nd quarter vs the Swans, they kicked 6.1. Is the inaccuracy the fault of the gameplan when players are missing regulation shots at goal?

 

Melbourne has one stand out weakness. And it is not our game plan. Though it certainly negatively impacts on the effectiveness of our game plan.

We have had the weakness for 25 years. And it is not mental fragility. Though it certainly creates mental demons and our ability to execute in big moments.

Our recruiting philosophy in the last 5 years has exacerbated the weakness. 

The weakness is that, with a very small handful of exceptions, we are a terrible kicking side and almost all of our players have woeful kicking techniques. 

Of our top 30 players i would only rate the following players as being above average kicks (and unsurprisingly all have strong techniques): Fritsch, Salem, Melksham, Lewis, Vince, Weiderman, Omac, Oliver, JKH, Hibberd (just), Spargo (but only up to 30 metres) and Tmac (but only when shooting for goal).

That is simply not enough players who can be relied on to: hit a basic target, kick clutch goals under pressure, kick a ball to a designated spot, kick to a forwards advantage (put it in front of them, put it on their side of the contest!!!) and critically be trusted not to break scoring chains through basic turnovers.

And of the 12 players noted above only 3 are anywhere near elite kicks. Again not nearly enough

Our recruiting in recent years has empahsised players who are strong at the contest at the expense of skilled kicks. The best coach of the last 50 years, Alistair Clarkson has recruited all sorts of different players - talls, silky skilled, outside and inside. But there is one skill he has has empahsised throughout his career as coach - kicking. And won 4 flags.

We have more talent than the current Hawks side and are certainly stronger at the contest. They are equally inexperienced, albeit with some senior players with much finals experience. And they are also down key players. Yet they are above us on the ladder. In large part because they have more players who are above average kicks.

The stat about our goal kicking accuracy against top 8 sides mentioned on Footy Classified was fascinating. It is too easy to say the cause is mental weakness or choking - but not surprising so many so called experts go there given the shallowness of most analysis. 

Yes mental strength, inexperience and not playing in enough big games are factors.

But the real cause is poor technique.

Kicking technique is tested by 3 key external variables: environmental (wind, rain, dew, humidity etc), fatigue and most critical of all pressure (big moments, big games etc) 

The golf swing of professionals (and amateurs for that matter) is a good analogy for kicking technique. The best golfer's swings stand up under those same 3 variables and in particular pressure. Poor techniques don't. Not often enough anyway. Which is why so many brilliant players, like Adam Scott (whose putting technique has always been poor)do not win more often.  

Perhaps the best example is Greg Norman who was so often unfairly accused of choking. He had technical flaws in his game that were exposed under pressure - namely blocking drives.

Tiger Woods is perhaps the most mentally strong player in the modern era but when he had to retool his technique because of his back injury he could not execute under pressure because his swing could not stand up under the variables noted above.

Love him or hate but Jack Watts would have nailed his shots if he played in Sunday. And we win that game. Which is why i wanted to keep him. Yes i understand and respect the decision to trade him but i would have kept him simply because he was the best, most reliable kick in our side with a technique that holds up under pressure. And as i said above we simply do not have enough of that sort of player.

And please don't throw Fritisch up. We could have traded one of our rubbish kicks - hunt for example - and had both of them in our forward line. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by binman

[praha 11,236]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Melbourne has one stand out weakness. And it is not our game plan. Though it certainly negatively impacts on the effectiveness of our game plan.

We have had the weakness for 25 years. And it is not mental fragility. Though it certainly creates mental demons and our ability to execute in big moments.

Our recruiting philosophy in the last 5 years has exacerbated the weakness. 

The weakness is that, with a very small handful of exceptions, we are a terrible kicking side and almost all of our players have woeful kicking techniques. 

Of our top 30 players i would only rate the following players as being above average kicks (and unsurprisingly all have strong techniques): Fritsch, Salem, Melksham, Lewis, Vince, Weiderman, Omac, Oliver, JKH, Hibberd (just), Spargo (but only up to 30 metres) and Tmac (but only when shooting for goal).

That is simply not enough players who can be relied on to: hit a basic target, kick clutch goals under pressure, kick a ball to a designated spot, kick to a forwards advantage (put it in front of them, put it on their side of the contest!!!) and critically be trusted not to break scoring chains through basic turnovers.

And of the 12 players noted above only 3 are anywhere near elite kicks. Again not nearly enough

Our recruiting in recent years has empahsised players who are strong at the contest at the expense of skilled kicks. The best coach of the last 50 years, Alistair Clarkson has recruited all sorts of different players - talls, silky skilled, outside and inside. But there is one skill he has has empahsised throughout his career as coach - kicking. And won 4 flags.

We have more talent than the current Hawks side and are certainly stronger at the contest. They are equally inexperienced, albeit with some senior players with much finals experience. And they are also down key players. Yet they are above us on the ladder. In large part because they have more players who are above average kicks.

The stat about our goal kicking accuracy against top 8 sides mentioned on Footy Classified was fascinating. It is too easy to say the cause is mental weakness or choking - but not surprising so many so called experts go there given the shallowness of most analysis. 

Yes mental strength, inexperience and not playing in enough big games are factors.

But the real cause is poor technique.

Kicking technique is tested by 3 key external variables: environmental (wind, rain, dew, humidity etc), fatigue and most critical of all pressure (big moments, big games etc) 

The golf swing of professionals (and amateurs for that matter) is a good analogy for kicking technique. The best golfer's swings stand up under those same 3 variables and in particular pressure. Poor techniques don't. Not often enough anyway. Which is why so many brilliant players, like Adam Scott (whose putting technique has always been poor)do not win more often.  

Perhaps the best example is Greg Norman who was so often unfairly accused of choking. He had technical flaws in his game that were exposed under pressure - namely blocking drives.

Tiger Woods is perhaps the most mentally strong player in the modern era but when he had to retool his technique because of his back injury he could not execute under pressure because his swing could not stand up under the variables noted above.

Love him or hate but Jack Watts would have nailed his shots if he played in Sunday. And we win that game. Which is why i wanted to keep him. Yes i understand and respect the decision to trade him but i would have kept him simply because he was the best, most reliable kick in our side with a technique that holds up under pressure. And as i said above we simply do not have enough of that sort of player.

And please don't throw Fritisch up. We could have traded one of our rubbish kicks - hunt for example - and had both of them in our forward line. 

Not sure this is a reflection of gameplan but agree that under pressure we spray and our skills drop off considerably. I mentioned that earlier and two posters put words in my mouth by saying I was attacking the gameplan.

All teams' skills drop under pressure but it is the capacity to be accountable defensively that is key. Sydney of 2005 were an awful kicking sider and not especially skilled, but they were accountable. 120 uncontested possession differential on the weekend against a team 2 down suggests we were shockingly unaccountable and lazy.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Good post Bin. Very good point btw ..Sparta types at the expense of kicking.

....and .....fastest way to move ball..... precision kicking

That's not us eh ...

[Demonsone 2,036]

Tom Mac stated we don’t have a mental toughness issues & we are the most contested team & fwd 50 entries but don maximise on it .. Isn’t mental toughness to finish off your hard work???

[beelzebub 23,313]

Just now, Hogan2014 said:

Tom Mac stated we don’t have a mental toughness issues & we are the most contested team & fwd 50 entries but don maximise on it .. Isn’t mental toughness to finish off your hard work???

I watched Sundays game with one ex player ..and one current...( decent player in local footy )  Both.. unsolicited.. expressed dismay at our lack of composure. ( That's putting it nicely btw ).  Composure is often the result of coolness under pressure. This a quality of those that can be immune( or seriously control ) the nerves/ fear of a moment. Those that can are mentally stronger/conditioned than those who can't.

Unsavoury quote of the day " you guys panic like under 10's" ..ouch ☹️

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

"We're a high scoring team and that the only thing wrong on Sunday was the goal kicking. No choke, just didn't execute well."

Did anyone watch any of the match? We were headless chooks. And that probably affected the goalkicking. And then the multiple muffed chances affected the players' mental state further. Playing catch up in the last flattered us on the scoreboard.

 

"Our game plan is working, we just need to fine tune it."

How often have you seen this scenario play out? We're playing well, scoring well, then there's a change of momentum. Suddenly when we have the ball, there's no one to give it to. We end up playing frantic ring a rosie with handpasses until someone long bombs it, either to a contest where we're outnumbered, or to a contest that is to the oppo's advantage.

And then when the oppo have it, they seem to be able to move the ball with amazing freedom and we can't lay a finger on them! Why can they do it and we can't?

I've seen this over and over this season. Even against GCS there were traces of it in the 3rd quarter.

 

The facts are brutally simple. We don't beat top sides. We cannot compete with the top sides. Even with our suspect game plan, we can score enough to make it close on the scoreboard, but can't get to the finish line.

Game plans can get fixed. Look at Richmond. Enter Justin Leppitsch, suddenly they are a fortress in defence.

Fragile minds are harder to fix.

[binman 42,681]

39 minutes ago, Hogan2014 said:

Tom Mac stated we don’t have a mental toughness issues & we are the most contested team & fwd 50 entries but don maximise on it .. Isn’t mental toughness to finish off your hard work???

No. Good kicking is. Always has been. Always will be. Great example the cats last q against us and rhe swans 2nd.

Kennedys kick a perfect example. The wind was swirling and genuinely tricky. Our crap kicks simply could nor cope with it. He never looked like missing from 40. Perfect technique

[Pates 9,660]

54 minutes ago, Hogan2014 said:

Tom Mac stated we don’t have a mental toughness issues & we are the most contested team & fwd 50 entries but don maximise on it .. Isn’t mental toughness to finish off your hard work???

Having the composure to finish off the midfields good work and kick under pressure is 100% a sign of mental toughness. Lewis is the only person at the club I would want having a shot after a siren for us, because he can kick them in the clutch moments. Everyone else I feel like would faint at the thought of kicking after the siren.

[SFebes 4,884]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

No. Good kicking is. Always has been. Always will be. Great example the cats last q against us and rhe swans 2nd.

Kennedys kick a perfect example. The wind was swirling and genuinely tricky. Our crap kicks simply could nor cope with it. He never looked like missing from 40. Perfect technique

I agree with you but Goodwin has built a game plan around a team that can’t kick. Hawks on the other hand recruited elite ball users for years and built their game plan around it.

[binman 42,681]

2 minutes ago, MSFebey said:

I agree with you but Goodwin has built a game plan around a team that can’t kick. Hawks on the other hand recruited elite ball users for years and built their game plan around it.

All game plans require good kicks for them to work. Rhe best players are generallt excellent teams and the best teams have more excellent players.

[SFebes 4,884]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

All game plans require good kicks for them to work. Rhe best players are generallt excellent teams and the best teams have more excellent players.

I would argue that Richmond’s doesn’t, theirs is revolves around desperation and getting it forward, they scrap their way through.

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

1 hour ago, Hogan2014 said:

Tom Mac stated we don’t have a mental toughness issues & we are the most contested team & fwd 50 entries but don maximise on it .. Isn’t mental toughness to finish off your hard work???

Mental toughness is finding a way to win when the other side is playing well and dominating key parts of the game.

Also protecting a lead and not squandering 3-5 goal leads from mid third quarters and later.

And not taking the foot off the pedal after taking an early handy lead.

Plus finding a path to claw back a 3 to 4 goal deficit to win. 

Metal toughness means we can’t win them all but we play like we can.

Mental toughness does not describe us. Having mental toughness would have given us at least 3 extra wins so far this season.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by america de cali

[Wolfgang219 73]

On 8/13/2018 at 11:21 PM, red&blue1982 said:

This one.

Agreed on that one...

 

frost being the biggest of the group could at least pushed franklin 

[Chook 15,012]

On 8/13/2018 at 11:21 PM, red&blue1982 said:

This one.

Wow that's pathetic. No wonder we're a joke of a footy club.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

6 minutes ago, Chook said:

Wow that's pathetic. No wonder we're a joke of a footy club.

Saw this at the time and wondered why there wasn’t a response from our guys. But maybe that is because they are gun shy. Any retaliation would end in a free goal kick to the opposition. 

[John Demonic 5,749]

2 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Saw this at the time and wondered why there wasn’t a response from our guys. But maybe that is because they are gun shy. Any retaliation would end in a free goal kick to the opposition. 

They probably took it as seriously as Bayley fritsch did

[layzie 33,752]

3 hours ago, binman said:

Melbourne has one stand out weakness. And it is not our game plan. Though it certainly negatively impacts on the effectiveness of our game plan.

We have had the weakness for 25 years. And it is not mental fragility. Though it certainly creates mental demons and our ability to execute in big moments.

Our recruiting philosophy in the last 5 years has exacerbated the weakness. 

The weakness is that, with a very small handful of exceptions, we are a terrible kicking side and almost all of our players have woeful kicking techniques. 

Of our top 30 players i would only rate the following players as being above average kicks (and unsurprisingly all have strong techniques): Fritsch, Salem, Melksham, Lewis, Vince, Weiderman, Omac, Oliver, JKH, Hibberd (just), Spargo (but only up to 30 metres) and Tmac (but only when shooting for goal).

That is simply not enough players who can be relied on to: hit a basic target, kick clutch goals under pressure, kick a ball to a designated spot, kick to a forwards advantage (put it in front of them, put it on their side of the contest!!!) and critically be trusted not to break scoring chains through basic turnovers.

And of the 12 players noted above only 3 are anywhere near elite kicks. Again not nearly enough

Our recruiting in recent years has empahsised players who are strong at the contest at the expense of skilled kicks. The best coach of the last 50 years, Alistair Clarkson has recruited all sorts of different players - talls, silky skilled, outside and inside. But there is one skill he has has empahsised throughout his career as coach - kicking. And won 4 flags.

We have more talent than the current Hawks side and are certainly stronger at the contest. They are equally inexperienced, albeit with some senior players with much finals experience. And they are also down key players. Yet they are above us on the ladder. In large part because they have more players who are above average kicks.

The stat about our goal kicking accuracy against top 8 sides mentioned on Footy Classified was fascinating. It is too easy to say the cause is mental weakness or choking - but not surprising so many so called experts go there given the shallowness of most analysis. 

Yes mental strength, inexperience and not playing in enough big games are factors.

But the real cause is poor technique.

Kicking technique is tested by 3 key external variables: environmental (wind, rain, dew, humidity etc), fatigue and most critical of all pressure (big moments, big games etc) 

The golf swing of professionals (and amateurs for that matter) is a good analogy for kicking technique. The best golfer's swings stand up under those same 3 variables and in particular pressure. Poor techniques don't. Not often enough anyway. Which is why so many brilliant players, like Adam Scott (whose putting technique has always been poor)do not win more often.  

Perhaps the best example is Greg Norman who was so often unfairly accused of choking. He had technical flaws in his game that were exposed under pressure - namely blocking drives.

Tiger Woods is perhaps the most mentally strong player in the modern era but when he had to retool his technique because of his back injury he could not execute under pressure because his swing could not stand up under the variables noted above.

Love him or hate but Jack Watts would have nailed his shots if he played in Sunday. And we win that game. Which is why i wanted to keep him. Yes i understand and respect the decision to trade him but i would have kept him simply because he was the best, most reliable kick in our side with a technique that holds up under pressure. And as i said above we simply do not have enough of that sort of player.

And please don't throw Fritisch up. We could have traded one of our rubbish kicks - hunt for example - and had both of them in our forward line. 

Excellent post. Not once over this 12 year ‘renaissance’ have we had a side that could hurt the opposition by foot on a regular basis. In some ways I don’t feel we’ve had anything like this since the era of Yze, Green, Bruce, Johnstone et al. 

[titan_uranus 24,975]

10 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Which stats suggest we can more than compete with the 'top sides'?

• More i50 - the ball often bounces out again.  It is often just ping-pong.  i50 to score conversion is a better measure.  We have been outdone on conversion rate in most losses.
• More scoring shots - doesn't look so good when 'rushed behinds' are removed because their defence set up better than our forwards or the defence pressure on 'snaps' is so high. 
• Goal/Behind ratio.  Can't be bothered redoing the scores but our poor goal/behind ratio isn't just set shot composure, it is also op defense structures/tactics and our forward structures/tactics.  They harass, we fumble.
• High contested possessions - terrific, except when the outplay us with the less taxing uncontested precision kicks/handballs and kill us because we can't get there to create a contest.  It is the controlled 'uncontested possessions' that hurt us when we lose.  Hawthorn, Sydney and to some extent Collingwood used this to perfection.  Note:  it is also how WCE beat Rich this year.
• Hit outs/Clearances - excellent at hitouts, except look at the losses vs Hawks, Sydney, Richmond - they forgo the hit outs and rove Max brilliantly to win the clearances so were able to neutralise our main weapon.  (Coll have Grundy who neutralised Max's impact).
• League high score for this year - Cumulative percentage of 74% against the top 9 teams.
• Tackling?  We have been out tackled in nearly every game against the 'top sides'

As that analysis shows, the top side's tactics to beat us have been very very similar:  Neutralise Max, control possessions, out tackle us, crowd our forward line, open up their own plus a few other tricks (especially from Collingwood). 

It is a pattern to which we have not found answers.  I've had a look at the games we lost to 'top sides' (and Geelong) this year and the measures I have noted above we have consistently been beaten on. 

And, just to rub salt into the wound the only club to not beat a 'top side' is Carlton.  There are two clubs who have beaten only one 'top side' are Collinwood and St kilda and in both cases it was us.

If you truly think a 'fix' here and a 'tweak' there are going to solve our problems against the way the top sides beat us then you are either not paying attention or not giving their team and their coaches enough credit. 

So please less of the 'faith' and the platitudes and provide some stats that suggest we can more than compete against the top sides (your words).  

I haven't had the chance to go into the rest of the post but this stood out to me so I went back and checked.

• Geelong the first time tackles were 72-45 in our favour.
• Hawthorn was 74-113 against
• Richmond 79-78 our favour
• Collingwood 68-71 their favour
• Port 88-99 their favour
• Geelong the second time 79-65 our favour
• Sydney 69-77 their favour

There's only one terrible performance there, we otherwise win the tackle count or we lose by a small margin (and in the case of Port we laid 88 anyway, it was an incredibly high-pressure game).

There is no doubt we have a weakness that good sides exploit - drop a man or two back, wait for us to turn it over in our forward line, and score against our open defensive half. We need to improve. But that is not inconsistent with arguing that the gameplan itself works. We've been in every game this year bar three (and of those, we dominated parts of the Hawthorn and Richmond games).