POSTGAME: Rd 02 vs Geelong

[Laughing Goat 308]

5 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Strongly disagree.

That's what our winning formula is based on. Repeat entries and beating teams in the contest. A "forward-half" game.

We lost the game by 80 points but won clearances and inside 50's convincingly.

Please tell me how that is not a massive fail and break-down of individual play along the way?

We are not learning a game-plan anymore mate. 

Speed, ball transition & hitting targets create scoring opportunities& in most cases, win games.

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

I think a large part of our loss wasn't necessary our game plan, but perhaps how it was executed and the part which we failed (effective inside 50s) played into the hands of Geelong who are the best defensive side in the league. Geelong had the lowest points against in the league in 2018 (and will most likely claim that in 2019). They have been for years, an extremely tough team to score against. Bombing in long and cleaning it up is their bread and butter. Goodwin and co need to recognise that not all teams can be dealt with the same way. Look at how Collingwood dismantled Richmond on Friday night? The tigers can't pressure you if you keep the ball off them. 

If we get 70 inside 50s against Essendon, we will beat them by 10 goals because they are a weak defensive side and are missing some key players (such as Hooker) - plus I assume it'll be better conditions. 

I think another thing that needs to come into focus in the defensive/two way running of our midfielders/half backs. Time and time again Geelong got on fast break aways, and with our defensive structures already pushed up the ground, it  just leads to easy scoring. Which is how you get a 63% effectiveness against us. Goodwin recognised our defensive structures were too high up after the Hawks game last year and he needs to adjust it again. We have to stop being so easy to score against otherwise this whole season is going to be a waste. He needs to take a leaf from Chris Scott's book and adapt to how they structure behind the ball - because it's the best in the league (same with the Hawks). You basically never get goal side against Geelong and the Hawks, but getting goal side of a melbourne mid or half back is a common occurrence in every game. 

[titan_uranus 24,990]

29 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree with this. If there is one thing we Melbourne supporters are exerts in, it's experiencing pathetic performances and enormous losses. This was not one of them. Yes, it was an 80-point loss on the scoreboard but it was far from an 80-point loss on the performance and balance of play. Make no mistake, we were nothing flash, but we weren't nearly 15-goal losers.

A nice little statistic I look at after games is the expected score vs actual score (based on teams' usual goal-kicking accuracy probabilities). The expected score was a 44-point loss to Geelong. As usual against us, they could barely miss on their home turf, kicking snaps and goals from the boundary in the wet. We, as usual against Geelong down there, missed a number of easy chances. So ignoring any other factor, on just goal-kicking accuracy probability alone, the deficit would've been halved and would've IMO more accurately reflected the state of the game.

That period in the third quarter summed up the game. We dominated the early parts and should've been back to within 2 goals - instead, we don't score, the Cats go bang, bang, bang from 3 entries and all of a sudden it's 7 goals the difference and game over. We crumbled too easily at the end but it's human nature to drop off when you put so much effort in for no reward and you see the game slipping away.

Despite all this, we clearly have key issues to address at both ends of the ground. Structurally we were an absolute mess up forward - probably the best indication of this was the number of times we kicked it inside 50m and the next player to touch the ball was a Cats player (it seemed to happen all the time). The mids just hacking it in without looking certainly didn't help, but it almost looked like they were told just get it in at all costs given our desire to play a forward-half game. Problem was we showed absolutely no ability to lock it in there and Geelong are probably the best team at setting up a defensive structure to deal with hacked kicks forward. We currently look stodgy up forward, predictable and devoid of X-factor and flair.

And defensively we are almost in as bad a shape as up forward. Geelong's forward line is hardly imposing, especially when their best forward Hawkins is nullified by the weather. But they scored 20 goals from 48 entries - a quite ridiculous statistic in the wet. Port the same. Richmond the same in JLT 1. Brisbane the same in JLT 2. Essendon have really struggled with their inside 50 efficiency so far this year so if we can't improve in that area next week we are in a fair bit of trouble.

Given I haven't seen the game I have to defer to those who have, so this post is certainly good to read.

I was interested in the final paragraph though. I wanted to go back and take a look at those four games to see if there was a trend

• Last night Geelong scored 20 goals from 48 entries, which a 41.7% strike rate.
• Port - 12 goals, 59 entries, 20.3%
• Brisbane - 15 goals, 52 entries, 28.8%
• Richmond - 16 goals, 59 entries, 27%

So across JLT and Round 1 our opponents were in the 20-28% range for goals from inside 50s. Then last night that jumps up to 41.7%. I suppose that supports your argument about Geelong well exceeding their expected score but I'm not sure whether you're right to say "Port the same, Richmond the same, Brisbane the same".

[Adam The God 30,213]

2 hours ago, P-man said:

Viney is probably the biggest positive out of the game for me. He’s such an important part of the side going forward. It was a strong sense of relief to see him running freely. 

He did yo-yo in and out of the game though. I reckon he's still another week or two away from putting four quarters together.

1 hour ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree with this. If there is one thing we Melbourne supporters are exerts in, it's experiencing pathetic performances and enormous losses. This was not one of them. Yes, it was an 80-point loss on the scoreboard but it was far from an 80-point loss on the performance and balance of play. Make no mistake, we were nothing flash, but we weren't nearly 15-goal losers.

A nice little statistic I look at after games is the expected score vs actual score (based on teams' usual goal-kicking accuracy probabilities). The expected score was a 44-point loss to Geelong. As usual against us, they could barely miss on their home turf, kicking snaps and goals from the boundary in the wet. We, as usual against Geelong down there, missed a number of easy chances. So ignoring any other factor, on just goal-kicking accuracy probability alone, the deficit would've been halved and would've IMO more accurately reflected the state of the game.

That period in the third quarter summed up the game. We dominated the early parts and should've been back to within 2 goals - instead, we don't score, the Cats go bang, bang, bang from 3 entries and all of a sudden it's 7 goals the difference and game over. We crumbled too easily at the end but it's human nature to drop off when you put so much effort in for no reward and you see the game slipping away.

Despite all this, we clearly have key issues to address at both ends of the ground. Structurally we were an absolute mess up forward - probably the best indication of this was the number of times we kicked it inside 50m and the next player to touch the ball was a Cats player (it seemed to happen all the time). The mids just hacking it in without looking certainly didn't help, but it almost looked like they were told just get it in at all costs given our desire to play a forward-half game. Problem was we showed absolutely no ability to lock it in there and Geelong are probably the best team at setting up a defensive structure to deal with hacked kicks forward. We currently look stodgy up forward, predictable and devoid of X-factor and flair.

And defensively we are almost in as bad a shape as up forward. Geelong's forward line is hardly imposing, especially when their best forward Hawkins is nullified by the weather. But they scored 20 goals from 48 entries - a quite ridiculous statistic in the wet. Port the same. Richmond the same in JLT 1. Brisbane the same in JLT 2. Essendon have really struggled with their inside 50 efficiency so far this year so if we can't improve in that area next week we are in a fair bit of trouble.

I agree with most of this, but what it underlines for me is that we have to persevere with Petracca one-out. Had it not been a slippery, wet night, Petracca would have taken 3 or 4 marks that bounced off his chest or hands in the rain.

Not saying he was good enough by any stretch of the imagination, but his intensity was good, even very good at times. I thought he really lifted it. He, along with Melksham, are our best users of the ball going inside 50 and inside 50. 

Right now he's clearly bereft of confidence, but I'd give him one more week in dry conditions (the forecast for Friday is 27, so hopefully easier conditions) to build on the intensity. He made some howlers by foot last night too, but he wasn't alone and I'd much prefer we give him another week to gain some confidence. 

The forwardline I'd go with next week is McDonald, Weideman, Petracca, Fritsch, a resting Oliver or Brayshaw and Melksham. I'd play ANB between the wing and half forward (use his run to lock the footy inside 50 ala the first final last year or use his run for defensive transition if we lose centre clearances); Salem and KK (the latter needs more games in his legs) on wings and at half back to deliver inside 50; and I'd play Hunt on a wing too. The disposal by ANB and Hunt is questionable, but their running and pace needs to be utilised better up the ground if we're going to play a territory battle. 

The biggest problem with McDonald forward is he never lays tackles, so they know that by exploiting McDonald, they can run off him, which means we have to send our attacks through him more often, so that it doesn't allow his man to get off him. I like Petracca as a focal point too and I actually believe it will come for him. If you look at De Goey and Petracca, one is absolutely full of confidence and the other is completely bereft, but Petracca's work rate was there last night as I watched him closely. He just needs to string a few performances together and he's not alone there.

1 hour ago, scarlett said:

Disagree with you on kicking it to the hotspot, its flawed in that contested marks are much harder to take than one on a lead. Our forwards need to lead and lead hard to all different areas in the fifty, the ball carrier will kick to where the forwards are. With the players spread over the 50 and us not having any small forwards that crumb better than their opponents,  it also clogs up their rebound and takes defenders away from helping and the defenders being under more one on one pressure with help further away! At present they rebound into open spaces in a big wave of players allowing easy hit up targets which result in controlled forward movement and good inside 50s which makes our back structures look under 16s standard.

We went hard after players like may and lever, we dont need to go hard for a tom lynch, we need to go hard for the best forward line coach in the afl. We fix this it fixes the ridiculous opposition inside 50 goal ratio.

My point here was that the better place to kick the dump kick is to the 30m hot spot, not the goal line, where it can easily be rushed. I agree that we need to be lowering our eyes and hitting up leading targets. We also need to combine moving it quickly with smart ball use. Last night I actually can't fault the game plan of moving it quickly and long to our forwards, problem was it was kicked to 2-on-1s too often and not to the advantage of our forwards.

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

The FD suffers from short-sightedness. The FD learns nothing and cannot be advised. The FD has too many obvious favourites amongst the playing group and does little to develop younger players to a plan. The concept of 'team' has disappeared completely as a result.

That's rubbish. How would you know? All we've got to go upon is that until the last two weeks, players that have come into our system have thrived and developed into better players than when they came to us.

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

I feel you have inferred far too much from a fairly simple comment.

It was more aimed at people that are throwing the towel in for the season over a couple of losses. I’m as disappointed as the next person but I personally don’t see what getting overly emotional about it online does. The rest of the comment was centred around remaining objective about where we are at given our pre season. 

If that triggers you then go ahead and put me on ignor. 

I think you might be lacking in a bit of empathy then. It's pretty clear that people use Demonland to vent their frustrations rather than the real world. This is a lot healthier IMO then getting [censored] or throwing punches at the footy. You don't personally see how getting overly emotional about footy online does, but that's you and how you deal with defeat. Others need to vent. 

I have not a single poster on ignore and don't plan to. I simply disagree vehemently with what you said and that's fine. Throwing out lines, whether you think they're simple or not, still have meaning, so if you can't handle criticism don't put them out there.

I think we can remain objective based on the output of JLT 1 and 2, coupled with Rounds 1 and 2, and state that our pre season absolutely has something to do with it, but that our system is broken and that unless we fix it quick smart, we won't even make the 8. If you'd prefer rose-coloured glasses and blue-sky dreaming that's fine. I'd prefer to identify the problems and debate the best ways of fixing them. That is my natural way of dealing with defeat. I don't like to give up and I find it difficult to respect people who give up.

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

Went back and checked last weeks stats, I thought we lost i50’s last week. Turns out we didn’t. 

I’m don’t disagree with you, I’m just trying to find some positives that we can build on instead of getting hysterical. Our flaws are horribly obvious and hardly need pointing out. 

Likewise, here. Perhaps, this isn't the best way of fixing the problem, because our positives last night were offensive work rate, winning the clearances, inside 50s and getting close in CPs and even close enough in UPs (we've won games with greater differential than what we had in UPs last night), and none of these hold answers to why we lost by 80 points. It's the things that didn't work (the 'negatives' as you might put them) that hold the key. Fix these and we might be in a better place.

[qwerty7 326]

Last night was disappointing, but the final margin certainly didn't reflect our efforts or performance on a whole. Geelong were the definite winner and we were by no means our best, but as many have already said, inefficiency inside our forward 50 paired with Geelong's efficiency inside theirs explains the final score. 

The first quarter cost us and then from there onwards, we were constantly playing catch up and putting in a great deal of effort to no avail. Our contested style of footy started to get better as the game progressed, but we just couldn't seem to score. 

Undoubtedly, we are down compared to last year and why that is, is not completely clear yet. An interrupted preseason for many of our players certainly hasn't helped in the gelling of our team, which may explain our lack of fluency in moving the ball. Perhaps it is that we are adjusting to new players who are still learning about their teammates and the expected game plan. On that topic of game plan, that could very well be the issue too. Opposition teams have potentially figured us out or we aren't executing it to the level of precision required. The way we deliver our ball inside 50 is indeed problematic, but maybe we underestimated the loss of Hogan and how that would affect our game plan. 

It is a difficult problem to solve and I don't think it is a case where you can pinpoint one thing. Having said that, we are not a cause for panic attacks just yet. 0-2 is not the ideal start for the season, but there are 20 games to go and a lot to still play out. I am frustrated and anxious that this will be a sub-par year compared to the one before, but I will back us in to turn things around. Hopefully it is this Friday against the Bombers, but ultimately this is a challenge for our team to embrace and work on over the rest of the season.

Obviously you have to win games to cement yourself in the 8, but it is also a game of timing. The best teams are always the ones that are performing the best towards the end of the season and take that form into finals. I remember us all have similar reaction last year post the 70 pt loss to Hawthorn in Round 4 followed by a second loss to Richmond. 

There's still a lot to play out  and two losses in a row just because it is at the start of season does not necessarily indicate how our season will pan out. Collingwood went into the bye 6-6 last year and went on to be in the grand final. It is not a season of perfection - there will be downs, but hopefully soon, some highs.

We have the talent, we know what we are capable of and what to do, we just need to execute it better. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by qwerty7

[DV8 2,271]

15 hours ago, Redleg said:

We have concentrated on getting contested beasts, to the complete detriment of team balance. We now have no outside run and no small forwards. 

We have misread our list and our gameplan exacerbates the problem.

Bombing it into the forward 50 will now get us beaten most games. 

I disagree Red.

The AFL has Changed the game with one big decision. W have recruited smalls rinning players.   Just not early enough.  We did more smalls last draft.

Our wingers haven't come on so far, eg Stretch. etc

What we haven't done enough of is foot speed. to break from an opponent.

Last draft we recruited Sparrow who has some off the mark speed and we recruited Chandler Bedford, and now Lockhart.   Garlett has been a disappointment, apart from one committed season with us.

I wanted us to go for more speed over the past 3 or 4 drafts.  But better players than Hunt & Baker.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

4 hours ago, A F said:

This bit seems incongruous mate given you turned it off yourself at 3/4 quarter time.

True but I was also putting the kids to bed ???

[Laughing Goat 308]

Amongst all of the disappointment of last nights game & round 1, its still early days & we are only one or two wins away from being back on track.

We have the talent, that is proven & I believe most of the current issues are psychological, confidence etc. A few blokes need to get back to basics & just hunt the footy with some physicality & belief.....forget the media!

One thing that did catch my eye last night was the handball from Tom Hawkins to second gamer Jordan Clark to kick his first AFL goal......Fantastic!

You can see that Geelong have a great culture & I just wonder would any of our senior players, given the same situation, react in the same way. That's what the definition of respect & care is , in my opinion.

 

[DV8 2,271]

15 hours ago, Gunna’s said:

Totally agree

a post earlier mentioned that the FD did elective surgeries as this isn’t our premiership year, which I agree with too

we will come good, by rounds 7-9 we will be on all cylinders.  

Just need to hope that not too much damage is done before then

 

I think we'll turn things about fairly quickly, but lack of form coming into season has hurt a bit.  not as much as the pain to the faith.

 

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Back then we had a little bit of momentum...then a reality check.

Here...no momentum...no wins.

Just losses...and margins increasing.

I'm not sure whether we're a train wreck or if it's just the wheels falling off !!

Quite frankly we're a basketcase of a team.

No discernible game plan ( that works towards achieving a victory ) and a FD not keen on assuming ( acknowledging ) responsibility.

This is very different to last year. Then we looked like we might be getting somewhere.

We're going backwards currently, at a million miles an hour.

Yep...all good... nothing to see here... move along

Rnd 1 Beez was a worse loss.

Rnd 2 loss appears worse, but its not.  We did pick up some momentum during the course of the game with effort , but the gamestyle needs a tweak now,  to suit the rule changes.

 

The wider Mcg ground will help us to some extent, but also expose our  'close the space'  gamestyle,  which does not work anywhere near as well, under (6.6.6.)

[Demonsone 2,037]

Bottom of the ladder again!

Hawks have turned over their list after winning 3 flags in a row & yet continue to contest!

MFC have had so many early picks since 07 & yet on last nights form still don't look to be going anywhere !

55 years of insipid  performances!

[beelzebub 23,326]

7 minutes ago, DV8 said:

I think we'll turn things about fairly quickly, but lack of form coming into season has hurt a bit.  not as much as the pain to the faith.

 

Rnd 1 Beez was a worse loss.

Rnd 2 loss appears worse, but its not.  We did pick up some momentum during the course of the game with effort , but the gamestyle needs a tweak now,  to suit the rule changes.

 

The wider Mcg ground will help us to some extent, but also expose our  'close the space'  gamestyle,  which does not work anywhere near as well, under (6.6.6.)

Any team that controls the ball , especially on the G will deprive us of our"brand"

Our style,if you can call a dog's breakfast attack, a style, requires the ball continually in motion. Almost scrumlike

They've figured us out. Wasn't hard.

[DV8 2,271]

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Any team that controls the ball , especially on the G will deprive us of our"brand"

Our style,if you can call a dog's breakfast attack, a style, requires the ball continually in motion. Almost scrumlike

They've figured us out. Wasn't hard.

That's what we need to change...  how we take of the ball out of the centre, and the direction we take it inside 50.

It's our coughing the ball up inside the square,  that hurts us the other way... and with (666), there is more man on man and less of the blocking of space.

We need more runners to close down on opponents with the ball...  and to find space to receive and carry.

[manny100 1,546]

Heaps of inside 50s. No outstanding talls to take a mark. No super quick small to crumb goals or put defensive pressure on when they had the ball therefore easy rebound. When Gawn rested late 1st quarter we were scored heavily against. We need more pace especially up forward. Maybe Gawn more time forward and Pruess to back up in ruck. Not sure where we get the pace from.

[beelzebub 23,326]

2 minutes ago, DV8 said:

That's what we need to change...  how we take of the ball out of the centre, and the direction we take it inside 50.

It's our coughing the ball up inside the square,  that hurts us the other way... and with (666), there is more man on man and less of the blocking of space.

We need more runners to close down on opponents with the ball...  and to find space to receive and carry.

And this is where comments such as those of Red have traction. We lack the run and skilled players to move it quickly..and dare I say controlled.

We do need to change. Is there the will to do so in the FD ?

[Demonland 71,975]

THE CAT RUN by George on the Outer

It truly became a “Cat Run” with an 80 point win to the home side, an outcome that had us wondering what happened to the Demons of 2018 when they got to a Preliminary final on the basis of their “brand” of contested football?  

Well that part hasn’t changed any, since the likes of Clayton Oliver can win the ball 44 times in a game including 15 clearances, Angus Brayshaw racks up 33 touches with Jack Viney chipping in for 27 of this own.  In the ruck Max Gawn had 53 hitouts on the night, and yet on a wet and continuously raining night the team get beaten by 80 points!

The Demons went inside their forward line 25 more times than the Cats for the game, this should have been a comprehensive Melbourne victory, based on these overwhelming statistics.  

But to lose instead by 13 goals means that something else is seriously, seriously out of whack!

There is no doubt the forward line is completely dysfunctional. For the second week in a row Melbourne robbed the forwards of a tall to replace Gawn in the ruck to give him a rest.  For the second week in a row it failed, and failed big time.  Geelong didn’t have two rucks, they just used Hawkins in the forward line, Blicavs in the backline and Ratugolea as backups.  This gave Stanley free reign to run Max around and into the ground.  

Unless Gawn can run the whole game, and around the whole ground at full pace, then perhaps the selectors could try bringing a second ruckman in to the side on selection night. 

And a forward line with the likes of Sparrow, Fritsch, ANB, first gamer Lockhart, even Melksham and Hunt simply isn’t going to match it for height against Taylor, Stewart and Blicavs. The constant bombing inside by Melbourne just meant Geelong were able to spoil or outmark their Melbourne opponents since it had only Weideman and Tom McDonald as talls, (when they weren’t dragged into the ruck).  One spare Geelong tall all the time, or even more when Ratugolea or Stanley dropped back as well.   

Small wonder Melbourne wasn’t able to score, with yet another goal-less quarter (this time the third) which is too often now becoming part of “the Brand”. The other troubling re-emergence is the inability to stop an opposition teams “run on”.  

In the first quarter, the Cats kicked 5 unanswered goals in a 13 minute period and it was effectively game over in the wet. But they followed it up with a six goal unanswered period in the third and a 4 goal run in the last.  This was emblematic of the worst of Melbourne sides prior to the arrival of Paul Roos.  

The mids were fantastic as seen by the simply enormous touches, contested possessions and simply drive they provided.  The backs did their job well as evidenced by Hawkins only producing two goals for the night in a team which kicked 10 times as much.  

And the backline coaches have to stop the ridiculous habit we are developing of kicking short from the point-kick-ins.  Clearing the danger zone should be critical. Again, that was a hallmark of Roos, which seems to have disappeared. 

The loss was simply the lack of pressure coming from too many around the ground, and the lack of scoreboard pressure caused by the forwards.  The selectors have got to stop putting debutants into the side and expecting more.  They have got to provide assistance to Gawn with another ruck or tall who can double as a forward.  

Losing the first two games, and not being competitive in either is a troubling sign.  Can it be turned around?  

First step is the selection table, or we will face another blow-up against the hapless Bombers next game. 
 
Melbourne 2.2.14 3.4.22 3.9.27 6.10.46

Geelong 6.1.37 7.4.46 13.4.82 20.6.126

Goals

Melbourne Melksham 2 Brayshaw Lockhart Viney Weideman

Geelong Rohan 3  Dahlhaus Dangerfield Hawkins Selwood 2 Clark Constable Duncan Kelly Menegola Miers O'Connor Parfitt  Ratugolea 

Best

Melbourne Oliver Gawn Brayshaw Viney

Geelong Dangerfield Selwood Kelly Stewart Dahlhaus Taylor Hawkins Constable 

Injuries 

Melbourne May (groin)

Geelong Henry (hamstring)

Reports Nil

Umpires McInerney, Williamson, Wallace

Official crowd at GMHBA Stadium Too many Cats sycophants to count so the figure has yet to be released

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

1 hour ago, A F said:

He did yo-yo in and out of the game though. I reckon he's still another week or two away from putting four quarters together.

I agree with most of this, but what it underlines for me is that we have to persevere with Petracca one-out. Had it not been a slippery, wet night, Petracca would have taken 3 or 4 marks that bounced off his chest or hands in the rain.

Not saying he was good enough by any stretch of the imagination, but his intensity was good, even very good at times. I thought he really lifted it. He, along with Melksham, are our best users of the ball going inside 50 and inside 50. 

Right now he's clearly bereft of confidence, but I'd give him one more week in dry conditions (the forecast for Friday is 27, so hopefully easier conditions) to build on the intensity. He made some howlers by foot last night too, but he wasn't alone and I'd much prefer we give him another week to gain some confidence. 

The forwardline I'd go with next week is McDonald, Weideman, Petracca, Fritsch, a resting Oliver or Brayshaw and Melksham. I'd play ANB between the wing and half forward (use his run to lock the footy inside 50 ala the first final last year or use his run for defensive transition if we lose centre clearances); Salem and KK (the latter needs more games in his legs) on wings and at half back to deliver inside 50; and I'd play Hunt on a wing too. The disposal by ANB and Hunt is questionable, but their running and pace needs to be utilised better up the ground if we're going to play a territory battle. 

The biggest problem with McDonald forward is he never lays tackles, so they know that by exploiting McDonald, they can run off him, which means we have to send our attacks through him more often, so that it doesn't allow his man to get off him. I like Petracca as a focal point too and I actually believe it will come for him. If you look at De Goey and Petracca, one is absolutely full of confidence and the other is completely bereft, but Petracca's work rate was there last night as I watched him closely. He just needs to string a few performances together and he's not alone there.

My point here was that the better place to kick the dump kick is to the 30m hot spot, not the goal line, where it can easily be rushed. I agree that we need to be lowering our eyes and hitting up leading targets. We also need to combine moving it quickly with smart ball use. Last night I actually can't fault the game plan of moving it quickly and long to our forwards, problem was it was kicked to 2-on-1s too often and not to the advantage of our forwards.

That's rubbish. How would you know? All we've got to go upon is that until the last two weeks, players that have come into our system have thrived and developed into better players than when they came to us.

I think you might be lacking in a bit of empathy then. It's pretty clear that people use Demonland to vent their frustrations rather than the real world. This is a lot healthier IMO then getting [censored] or throwing punches at the footy. You don't personally see how getting overly emotional about footy online does, but that's you and how you deal with defeat. Others need to vent. 

I have not a single poster on ignore and don't plan to. I simply disagree vehemently with what you said and that's fine. Throwing out lines, whether you think they're simple or not, still have meaning, so if you can't handle criticism don't put them out there.

I think we can remain objective based on the output of JLT 1 and 2, coupled with Rounds 1 and 2, and state that our pre season absolutely has something to do with it, but that our system is broken and that unless we fix it quick smart, we won't even make the 8. If you'd prefer rose-coloured glasses and blue-sky dreaming that's fine. I'd prefer to identify the problems and debate the best ways of fixing them. That is my natural way of dealing with defeat. I don't like to give up and I find it difficult to respect people who give up.

Likewise, here. Perhaps, this isn't the best way of fixing the problem, because our positives last night were offensive work rate, winning the clearances, inside 50s and getting close in CPs and even close enough in UPs (we've won games with greater differential than what we had in UPs last night), and none of these hold answers to why we lost by 80 points. It's the things that didn't work (the 'negatives' as you might put them) that hold the key. Fix these and we might be in a better place.

Good work AF positive, early in the season, work into the first half dozen games and see where we are at.Would be nice to know the season plan but just keep the faith with these blokes. Noticed Oliver right at the end. He never gives up. What a player...

[Wrecker45 3,378]

40 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Any team that controls the ball , especially on the G will deprive us of our"brand"

Our style,if you can call a dog's breakfast attack, a style, requires the ball continually in motion. Almost scrumlike

They've figured us out. Wasn't hard.

Our brand looked pretty good at the G at the 2 finals I went and watched.

[beelzebub 23,326]

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

Our brand looked pretty good at the G at the 2 finals I went and watched.

How's it going since ? Especially after WCE showed everyone the key. Port played keepings off. Other teams will too

[jnrmac 20,058]

3 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

The FD suffers from short-sightedness. The FD learns nothing and cannot be advised. The FD has too many obvious favourites amongst the playing group and does little to develop younger players to a plan. The concept of 'team' has disappeared completely as a result.

They don't even review all games....

[Redleg 40,888]

I have watched quite a few games this weekend and noticed that only one side was incapable of creating space in their forward line and then finding a player with the entry. 

[TRIGON 4,783]

12 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Our brand looked pretty good at the G at the 2 finals I went and watched.

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

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

How's it going since ? Especially after WCE showed everyone the key. Port played keepings off. Other teams will too

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.

[DV8 2,271]

8 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Scott has swallowed his pride and reinvented Geelong's forward-line. They're now a very dangerous outfit. 

Let's hope Goodwin possesses the same level of maturity and realises certain cattle he is playing just simply don't cut it. 

Yes, he has.  He read the writing end of last season.

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I have a sense our good fortune last year was built upon a brand/style/plan that worked for us whilst no-one has a particularly good counter. It worked til someone figured out how to dismantle us. That was West Coast.

It's (666) that has undone our defensive press...  and our tempo work,  via creating stoppages & blocking of space in front of the opposition's ball.

[TRIGON 4,783]

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I have watched quite a few games this weekend and noticed that only one side was incapable of creating space in their forward line and then finding a player with the entry. 

Me too. Been watching other games through gritted teeth.

[Bay Riffin 1,474]

18 hours ago, Phadraig said:

I don't think Hunt is going to make it.

Hunt epitomises our problems at present. Has no confidence no intensity at the contest all night, appears lost like the rest of our backline and showing little skill. 

Mill be surprised if he’s not dropped. 

[Demonsone 2,037]

Tale of 2 clubs 

Hawks continue to find a way after winning 3 flags to rejuvenate & challenge by finishing top 4.

MfC continue to find ways of falling in a heap after playing in a few finals.