9 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I realise there's more to it, but isn't it ironic that we swapped our best FF for a FB, and now despite getting the ball in there, we can't kick goals and leak like a sieve at the back.

This is one of our greatest problems at the moment. The ball certainly is getting in there, but leakages down back and non-competitiveness aligned to a complete lack of creative play alternatives in the forward line rob us of around 60% of clearance/possession returns. Coaching and team integration .... undeveloped. The lack of speed compounds these faults.

13 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Enjoyable as those nights were, it’s too 1-dimensional. 

Yes, it’s been worked out. Still I’d rather we start with a core squad of hard inside contested ball winners and then add polish later.

Sadly, it may take a couple of years to fix redress the balance of our squad; giving time for our recent recruits to develop and trading/drafting other quality ball users.

We should become more competitive as the season progresses, but the media’s beat up as us being a flag contender looks way off the mark.

We have taken one step forward and three steps backward in the last 12 months ... coaching, strategies and creative efforts!

10 hours ago, —coach— said:

Yep and that best FF kicked 0.0 today so wouldn’t have helped at all.

 

7 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

And he wouldn't have done any better for us with the way the ball was being delivered.

We really need to stop bombing the ball in constantly, or throw Preuss or a resting Gawn in the forward line to stand under it.

JH was actually one of their best yesterday alternating between forward and midfield. Almost half of his 21 disposals came in the defensive half. His general field kicking is well above average and it was evident yesterday.

I thought we could cover his goals from last season, his link up play and ability to cover the ground might be a bigger loss than some thought.

11 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I realise there's more to it, but isn't it ironic that we swapped our best FF for a FB, and now despite getting the ball in there, we can't kick goals and leak like a sieve at the back.

We have always leaked like a sieve. Nothing new there.

far out I'm flat after that result. I honestly thought if our effort lifted and our 3-4 best players fired we could beat the Cats.

No doubt missing May, Lewis, Lever, AVB, Smith, Hannan, even Jeff and JKH is hurting us and exposing unfit and inexperienced players to the 22. A lot of the above are quick players too.

we need to get the game plan together and grind out a couple of wins out of the next 3 to stay in it. 

I know how the 80 point loss looks. The scoreboard is the main stat. i get that. But in reviewing the game that scoreboard is not a reflection of the game by any means.

its round 2 and we are 0-2. But when 12 first choice players go in for off season surgery, then you have other players sidelined right on the cusp of round 1, you never really are a chance to jump out of the blocks. We played Port who although are not world beaters, look a bloody good team. Then we play Geelong who will contend this year. 

the game style we played I'm confident in. Of course tweaks will be made. But, you slide Lever into CHB, Vandenberg to the half forward flank, Hannan into the forward pocket, Joel Smith in as our utility, and Lewis onto a half back flank and suddenly the experience, especially in that back half where we generate our attack from, looks very good. We can't discount what losing the experience, footy knowledge and leadership of lewis and Lever has done to the backline. I compare it to Brisbane playing without Luke Hodge. There is no way they would be nearly as good.

On top of returning players, you get Nathan Jones, Michael Hibberd, Neville Jetta, Kade Kolodjashnij, Steven May, Clayton Oliver, Jack Viney, and Jake Melksham hitting peak fitness. Suddenly not only do we continue to, if not improve on our contested game, inside 50 game etc, but the missing link in having people that can kick the ball, know how, where and when to run, plus added forward threats.

We started on the back foot with a delayed 3 week start to preseason as it was. It won't be long until this team hits its straps. I guess what I am trying to say is that, in my head anyway, I didn't really expect wins in the first few rounds. I was hopeful of some, but definitely not expecting them. I think anyone that did expect us to pick up from where we left off (In the semi-final) was not being realistic. The AFL competition this season has great teams littered throughout. Geelong are a great defensive team, they made it harder for our underdone and less experienced attack to be effective and we couldn't cope and didn't get our score on the board, so we ended up with a lop sided scoreboard. Scoreboard aside, the stats (Our DNA) was there. inject the previously mentioned players and get match fitness into the other previously mentioned and that line breaking, quick ball movement, and all our other missing traits suddenly pop back up. Then suddenly its the back end of the season, the team is rolling and we look the most dangerous side in the comp. Hitting the straps when it counts. 

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by demonchris

I wasn't at the game and you really get limited viewership on the TV but did anyone notice if our mids were getting sucked too deep into our forward 50? It has always been our game plan to out number at the contest, however maybe our mids took it too far and cramped our forward line up too much rather than building that solid wall across the middle of the ground and HF. Just thinking back to the game our entries looks so cramped and crowded, and Geelong was constantly able to sling shot with run from their HB into a open F50 with space for their forwards to work their craft. 

6 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

 

 

I thought we could cover his goals from last season, his link up play and ability to cover the ground might be a bigger loss than some thought.

Absolutely. I said as much last year. Weed is a traditional stay at home forward and will never get the possession numbers Jessie did for us. Or for that matter cover the sort of territory Hogan covers. Something that pulled defenders away from the back half and exposed them aerobically. He also was an important link between defence and offence, something we have really missed.

The way Jessie plays he can still be hugely influential without scoring. Stop weed scoring and he has next to no impact. Something he needs to address. It is one reason I like him in the ruck. Gets him in the game.

Make no mistake Hogan is a huge loss for us and the goals are just one element. 

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by binman

It can't be rocket science. Have a 12 % scoring ratio from a million inside 50s and concede every time the opposition gets 1 and you'll be a bad football team. Game plan is very simple at the moment, win contested ball, punch it in to 15 metres out in front ping pong back out and get beaten out back.

The best part about the game is the person next to me gave me a free donut. 

We called the game the 'Clint Bizzell Cup".

Won't be going to Geelong again in a hurry though, such a weird atmosphere to watch games too. 

On 3/31/2019 at 12:10 PM, A F said:

I agree with all this, Steve, but it sounds like you're being a little negative. Are we finally allowed to say the signs are not good now are we? 

I maintain that our pre-season form wasn't an indicator as to how we were going to start the season. Certainly not to this extent.

I was always worried about underdone players who had what myself and many others termed to be 'interrupted pre-seasons', only to be pulled up by that bearded guy who hasn't said boo since. (I wonder why).

You can't say that the Richmond game was a bad sign. They were next to full-strength and we were missing a host of best 22 players and lost by a kick. 

The Brisbane game was when we saw some ugly signs, but still, we shouldn't have lost to Port. Not with the team we put out vs theirs and not on our home deck. The first quarter wasn't a slow start was it? 

The reason we've lost both games go no deeper than a lack of care with ball in hand. We lost to Port due to our skill errors and we lost to Geelong because of our skill errors. 

When they're down, we're awful. But when they're up, we're great.

 

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by stevethemanjordan

I have been noticing a pattern to some of our recent diabolical losses. Not all but some conform to a pattern where we start very fast and dominant. We then appear to a hint of lairarising and fall to pieces. Happened last season against Hawks and Saints and late previous season against GWS.  This season against Tigers in JLT and also Port. 

 

On 3/31/2019 at 12:33 PM, A F said:

Scott is still playing the same system he's always played. Last year they were slightly arrogant with the inclusion of Ablett forward and didn't add enough pace to their forward half, but their game style is essentially unchanged since 2012, which is set up to concede the centre clearance and slingshot back the other way.

Our dominant players are mids and without extra pace in the forward line, we'll struggle to lock it inside 50 unless we start to lower our eyes more, as Geelong did on practically every occasion they went inside 50 after quarter time.

Their system is the same, yeh. I didn't question that.

They have completely changed their forward-line as far as personnel go. They've followed suit with teams like Richmond, West Coast and Collingwood. It suits the modern game. High pressure, highly skilled and smart forwards who can hit the scoreboard. Their ability to lock the ball inside their forward-half has gone through the roof now.

They have opportunist forwards. Where are ours? ANB and Sparrow? Inside mids?

Goodwin relies on system more than personnel. Which is why he persists with players like ANB playing at half-forward and Tyson on a wing etc.

Geelong were able to lock it in because we're a rabble in defence. We play a zone system which means that small opportunistic forwards can always cash in when a ball spills in their forward 50 area. How many times did it happen against Geelong?

Four defenders go up for the spoil, ball comes down and it's party time for Dalhaus, Miers, Rohan etc.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by stevethemanjordan

54 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I maintain that our pre-season form wasn't an indicator as to how we were going to start the season. Certainly not to this extent.

I was always worried about underdone players who had what myself and many others termed to be 'interrupted pre-seasons', only to be pulled up by that bearded guy who hasn't said boo since. (I wonder why).

You can't say that the Richmond game was a bad sign. They were next to full-strength and we were missing a host of best 22 players and lost by a kick. 

The Brisbane game was when we saw some ugly signs, but still, we shouldn't have lost to Port. Not with the team we put out vs theirs and not on our home deck. The first quarter wasn't a slow start was it? 

The reason we've lost both games go no deeper than a lack of care with ball in hand. We lost to Port due to our skill errors and we lost to Geelong because of our skill errors. 

When they're down, we're awful. But when they're up, we're great.

 

We disagree then. But remember you did a go at me and others. It reminded me of how the bearded deals with people too.

And I'd say, the way we fell away to Richmond was a bad sign. And the way we struggled to run out the game against Brisbane was a bad sign. The writing was on the wall, as @rjay aptly put it.

47 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Their system is the same, yeh. I didn't question that.

They have completely changed their forward-line as far as personnel go. They've followed suit with teams like Richmond, West Coast and Collingwood. It suits the modern game. High pressure, highly skilled and smart forwards who can hit the scoreboard. Their ability to lock the ball inside their forward-half has gone through the roof now.

They have opportunist forwards. Where are ours? ANB and Sparrow? Inside mids?

Goodwin relies on system more than personnel. Which is why he persists with players like ANB playing at half-forward and Tyson on a wing etc.

Geelong were able to lock it in because we're a rabble in defence. We play a zone system which means that small opportunistic forwards can always cash in when a ball spills in their forward 50 area. How many times did it happen against Geelong?

Four defenders go up for the spoil, ball comes down and it's party time for Dalhaus, Miers, Rohan etc.

I agree with everything here.

49 minutes ago, america de cali said:

I have been noticing a pattern to some of our recent diabolical losses. Not all but some conform to a pattern where we start very fast and dominant. We then appear to a hint of lairarising and fall to pieces. Happened last season against Hawks and Saints and late previous season against GWS.  This season against Tigers in JLT and also Port. 

I think the pattern is simply about taking your chances when presented. I maintain that had ANB goalled twice last week, we'd have been almost out of sight and it's a different game. Had Fritsch kicked that one in the third against Geelong, it's game on. It's certainly not an 80 point loss. 

The last two or even three seasons against Richmond has seen us completely dominant the territory battle in the first quarter and fail to put that dominance on the scoreboard. Richmond have got out the back for various reasons (defence being too high and aggressive last year) and have taken their limited opportunities. That's what good sides do.

We see so often in modern footy, a team completely dominate the other, but fail to put in on the scoreboard (and thus put on scoreboard pressure), and eventually the opposition take it down the other end and kick an easy goal with limited entries. It breaks spirit and fails to put pressure on the opposition. 

Start taking more of those chances and these patterns won't occur.

11 minutes ago, A F said:

Four defenders go up for the spoil, ball comes down and it's party time for Dalhaus, Miers, Rohan etc.

A recipe for footballing disasters.

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I maintain that our pre-season form wasn't an indicator as to how we were going to start the season. Certainly not to this extent.

I would say it's a very good indicator.

We were easily scored against and we had trouble scoring, our skills were poor, we had no system and we got beaten.

Basically from the prelim on we have been a dogs breakfast.

You've got a blind spot on the skill errors, they're only part of the issue.

During the week get the team onto two or three netball courts.

Teach them how to create and subsequently lead into space. Because they clearly don't know how to open up a game via utilising space.

Time and time again they run in ridiculous packs, with no one ahead of the ball, or god forbid if turned over one or two behind to defend.

39 minutes ago, ignition. said:

During the week get the team onto two or three netball courts.

Teach them how to create and subsequently lead into space. Because they clearly don't know how to open up a game via utilising space.

Time and time again they run in ridiculous packs, with no one ahead of the ball, or god forbid if turned over one or two behind to defend.

Forward line structure needs a lot of work. If the forwards are spreading to all different areas more chance of taking a mark. We also need to work the ball on angels and hit up short targets when under pressure, so more of the 50 is facing the kicker so defenders have to respect our forwards and cant peel off and follow the ball down the line.

If the mark is spilt and we dont get the crumb, its easier to defend 2 or 3 players that get to the ground ball and put pressure on the disposal. If the first exit disposal is under pressure, it gives our whole team more chance and time to defend and pressure all the way. Even if they do take it inside 50, it wont be completely on the oppositions terms so we can give our defence a chance to crowd the fall of the ball and rebound with numbers.

I saw an interesting stat where we had the second or third highest average speed in defensive running, which would be because of the ease and speed port and geelong rebounded.

AFLCA votes:

10 Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
8 Tim Kelly (GEEL)
4 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
3 Jake Kolodjashnij (GEEL)
2 Luke Dahlhaus (GEEL)
2 Tom Stewart (GEEL)
1 Mitch Duncan (GEEL)

Well done to Clayton and very well deserved.  I'm guessing Goodwin: 3 and Scott: 1. 

On 4/1/2019 at 8:17 AM, Dee Zephyr said:

 

JH was actually one of their best yesterday alternating between forward and midfield. Almost half of his 21 disposals came in the defensive half. His general field kicking is well above average and it was evident yesterday.

I thought we could cover his goals from last season, his link up play and ability to cover the ground might be a bigger loss than some thought.

Yes Hogan was impressive but like so may times when he was absent for us the team played far better. Freo were mightily impressive in round 1 sans Hogan. Arguably their best performance in many seasons. But they were the same old stodgy self in round 2 with Hogan. One of life’s great mysteries. 

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by america de cali

Re the AFLCA votes, I'm intrigued by the 3 votes to (J) Kolodjashni.  He didn't stand out on tv, stats not too flash and didn't feature in the 'Best' player lists that I saw.  So I reckon they were from Scott for doing the job assigned to him.  And, the job was?

Earlier in this thread I asked what happened to Salem this week?  No theories were forthcoming and I don't think his game falls away that badly in a week or 'was found out'.  I reckon Scott noticed he was our play maker last week and made him #1 target to work on/over (while everyone thought it would be Max).  So, he had JK tag Salem?  If my hunch is correct, it worked brilliantly and JK got the 3 votes as a reward.   

Scott is incredibly shrewd - doesn't worry too much about the big names, he identifies the key play maker at the time and works to take him out of the game.   For us it was Salem and whatever Scott did to take him out of the game, it worked and that tactic has gone under the radar.

Anyone notice JK during the game?

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

46 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Re the AFLCA votes, I'm intrigued by the 3 votes to (J) Kolodjashni.  He didn't stand out on tv, stats not too flash and didn't feature in the 'Best' player lists that I saw.  So I reckon they were from Scott for doing the job assigned to him.  And, the job was?

Earlier in this thread I asked what happened to Salem this week?  No theories were forthcoming and I don't think his game falls away that badly in a week or 'was found out'.  I reckon Scott noticed he was our play maker last week and made him #1 target to work on/over (while everyone thought it would be Max).  So, he had JK tag Salem?  If my hunch is correct, it worked brilliantly and JK got the 3 votes as a reward.   

Scott is incredibly shrewd - doesn't worry too much about the big names, he identifies the key play maker at the time and works to take him out of the game.   For us it was Salem and whatever Scott did to take him out of the game, it worked and that tactic has gone under the radar.

Anyone notice JK during the game?

He was solid throughout the match. I can't recall him losing a 1v1. It was a bit of a Nev Jetta performance but he was playing tall.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by A F

8 minutes ago, A F said:

He was solid throughout the match. I can't recall him losing a 1v1. It was a bit of a Nev Jetta performance but he was playing tall.

Cheers,

What do you think happened to Salem's game week to week?

16 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Cheers,

What do you think happened to Salem's game week to week?

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. Salem is rarely a player I notice, although I love his attributes.

The rain was pretty oppressive and made ball-handling difficult. Playing an outside role needed real gut running and I'm not sure any of our guys have that yet. I don't think Salem has anyway.