On 5/21/2020 at 8:18 PM, Demonland said:

 

Was this recorded after round 1 2019?

On 5/21/2020 at 9:57 PM, BAMF said:

As Mooney said... Believe it when I see it. But at least they have put it out there that they are attempting to fix it.

Round 1 was a real kick in the guts for the hope I had that this would be fixed over the preseason

Me too. Was a very disappointing game to watch. 

13 hours ago, Deeko2 said:

I agree that you can't fluke a 50 goal year.  Tom was great in 2018 however I don't think he will be able to ever repeat that as a number 1 forward.

T Mac will kick 40 goals this year as our number 1 key fwd.

Has 2 major attributes to achieve this:

1) one of the most methodical shots on goal in the league

2) will take a contested mark at any stage of the game.

Just cancel the 2020 season so I don't have to spend another 6 months reading about our poor inside 50 conversion.

Edited May 22, 20205 yr by John Demonic

It would have made interesting listening if the interviewer had the brains or balls on supporters behalf to ask Mahoney, exactly how has this been able to addressed in corona lockdown.

On 5/21/2020 at 9:38 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

Until the match committee select at least 2 tall forwards and not use one of them as a stand in ruck, we will struggle to kick goals.

As was proven in the WCE game.

 

That is a bit simplistic.

This is how I see it.

When you play a WCE, who are probably the masters at intercept footy, you don't kick the ball high to  two Eagles on one Demon, which we did continuously. How often did we kick it to Fritsch, who had McGovern and Barrass/Hurn on him?  That is just lazy and stupid footy.

For a start we have a loose man in that situation and we ignored him.

We also had some pace down there in Kossie and Bedford and you a least give them the chance to get it, by either finding them with a kick, or by kicking it wide of McGovern and his mate, which would see the ball on the ground, giving us a chance to get it and score.

I am astounded at how dumb some footballers are to keep doing what is clearly not working, over and over again. I don't know what the Coaches are doing or teaching them, but if it was me Coaching, I would tell them that the next bloke who kicks to 2 on one as above, is going for a run after the game. Get the message across to them.

The other problem we have is a general lack of skill with the ball, which sees us miss passes and handballs.

That is a killer in today's game.

Having 2 big blokes down forward is not the panacea to our problems.

35 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is a bit simplistic.

This is how I see it.

When you play a WCE, who are probably the masters at intercept footy, you don't kick the ball high to  two Eagles on one Demon, which we did continuously. How often did we kick it to Fritsch, who had McGovern and Barrass/Hurn on him?  That is just lazy and stupid footy.

For a start we have a loose man in that situation and we ignored him.

We also had some pace down there in Kossie and Bedford and you a least give them the chance to get it, by either finding them with a kick, or by kicking it wide of McGovern and his mate, which would see the ball on the ground, giving us a chance to get it and score.

I am astounded at how dumb some footballers are to keep doing what is clearly not working, over and over again. I don't know what the Coaches are doing or teaching them, but if it was me Coaching, I would tell them that the next bloke who kicks to 2 on one as above, is going for a run after the game. Get the message across to them.

The other problem we have is a general lack of skill with the ball, which sees us miss passes and handballs.

That is a killer in today's game.

Having 2 big blokes down forward is not the panacea to our problems.

I like how you see it, we're all frustrated by what we see and you can see it often in our forwards reactions. I've never been able to understand if it's poor execution, poor decision making or poor coaching but I would have thought one of the fundamentals should be; if a forward is in front of his opposition you kick the ball low and in front of him where he can catch it in his hands or run onto it if it is short. If a forward is behind you kick it higher and over the opposition and if it is over the forwards head they can still run onto it. So often I see our players kick to disadvantage instead of to advantage. It's not every kick that needs to be pinpoint & laser like but kicks should always be to advantage. When I see a great lead up forward double back and turn his opposition inside out and the ball then gets kicked directly to the opposition it does my head in.

I know we haven't had a lot of continuity (especially last year), which could be a contributing factor but surely the fundamentals should be rules that are enforceable. In all the time I've attended training I've heard plenty of "voice" but I've never heard  "kick it to advantage". One of the greatest deliverers of the ball I've seen was Travis Johnstone and he regularly put the ball to the advantage of a forward. 

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

That is a bit simplistic.

This is how I see it.

When you play a WCE, who are probably the masters at intercept footy, you don't kick the ball high to  two Eagles on one Demon, which we did continuously. How often did we kick it to Fritsch, who had McGovern and Barrass/Hurn on him?  That is just lazy and stupid footy.

For a start we have a loose man in that situation and we ignored him.

We also had some pace down there in Kossie and Bedford and you a least give them the chance to get it, by either finding them with a kick, or by kicking it wide of McGovern and his mate, which would see the ball on the ground, giving us a chance to get it and score.

I am astounded at how dumb some footballers are to keep doing what is clearly not working, over and over again. I don't know what the Coaches are doing or teaching them, but if it was me Coaching, I would tell them that the next bloke who kicks to 2 on one as above, is going for a run after the game. Get the message across to them.

The other problem we have is a general lack of skill with the ball, which sees us miss passes and handballs.

That is a killer in today's game.

Having 2 big blokes down forward is not the panacea to our problems.

Absolutely correct. It ain't rocket science and the coaches are responsible - they have provided instructions and training drills for who, where, against whom (each match), how far, ad infinitum.  Players are left playing to expected and time-honoured, proven dodgy instructions (readable) so they can get a game next week, too; on the rare occasion when the player does not have the time to dispose of the ball more effectively, it often works to perfection - hitting a loose man making the most of his opportunities - not his life insurance policy.

To me, the most revealing part of what Mahoney said was the bit where he talked about teams winning when they keep the ball in their forward 50/half.

IMO it's confirmation that the FD wants us to play a style of game where our focus is time in forward half, so the focus (in training) has not necessarily been on hitting a target when going inside 50 as much as it has been getting there and keeping it there until we score a goal.

10 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

To me, the most revealing part of what Mahoney said was the bit where he talked about teams winning when they keep the ball in their forward 50/half.

IMO it's confirmation that the FD wants us to play a style of game where our focus is time in forward half, so the focus (in training) has not necessarily been on hitting a target when going inside 50 as much as it has been getting there and keeping it there until we score a goal.

Seems a pretty dumb plan to try and keep it in the forward line when the kicks going in favour the opposition getting the ball or clearing it quickly out of there.

1 hour ago, Half forward flank said:

Seems a pretty dumb plan to try and keep it in the forward line when the kicks going in favour the opposition getting the ball or clearing it quickly out of there.

It's certainly not a great plan when we:

1. don't have decent small forwards able to pressure the opposition's back line;
2. don't keep our forwards forward of the ball carrier (or deliberately let ourselves become outnumbered forward of the ball carrier);
3. don't run hard two-ways;
4. play like this every week without accounting for our opponent (e.g. this is not a good game plan to take to Perth to play West Coast given their A-grade intercept defenders).

But if we play more like we did in 2018, with better two-way running, better small forwards and slightly smarter entries inside 50, our list is capable of winning games, and scoring heavily, doing this.

IMO the concept of forward half dominance doesn't need to be scrapped entirely, it just needs to be modified.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

To me, the most revealing part of what Mahoney said was the bit where he talked about teams winning when they keep the ball in their forward 50/half.

IMO it's confirmation that the FD wants us to play a style of game where our focus is time in forward half, so the focus (in training) has not necessarily been on hitting a target when going inside 50 as much as it has been getting there and keeping it there until we score a goal.

yeah that was our plan in 2018 and it worked sometimes. too bad that everyone has now worked us out.

Goodwin likes to push a forward up the ground to give us an extra around the ball instead, and 2 years ago the opposition would run a player with them, but now opposition coaches just let them go and keep an extra number in our forward 50 instead, knowing we cant hit targets to save ourselves, or have any sort of working forward system, and we'll usually just bomb it in to the hotspot.

so while we increase our chances of getting it forward, we usually just kick it back to them, then from there they quickly rebound down the ground because we also lack leg speed all over the ground to stop the fast break and most of our midfielders and the odd forward (hello Mr Melksham) don't like to work hard enough defensively.

everyone is awake to us and we just play right into the oppositions hands every week.

23 hours ago, Redleg said:

That is a bit simplistic.

This is how I see it.

When you play a WCE, who are probably the masters at intercept footy, you don't kick the ball high to  two Eagles on one Demon, which we did continuously. How often did we kick it to Fritsch, who had McGovern and Barrass/Hurn on him?  That is just lazy and stupid footy.

For a start we have a loose man in that situation and we ignored him.

We also had some pace down there in Kossie and Bedford and you a least give them the chance to get it, by either finding them with a kick, or by kicking it wide of McGovern and his mate, which would see the ball on the ground, giving us a chance to get it and score.

I am astounded at how dumb some footballers are to keep doing what is clearly not working, over and over again. I don't know what the Coaches are doing or teaching them, but if it was me Coaching, I would tell them that the next bloke who kicks to 2 on one as above, is going for a run after the game. Get the message across to them.

The other problem we have is a general lack of skill with the ball, which sees us miss passes and handballs.

That is a killer in today's game.

Having 2 big blokes down forward is not the panacea to our problems.

It is impossible to know what is happening on the ground, when watching it only on television. 

However, our observations are consistent about what happened in the WCE game. 

Barass/ Hurn/ McGovern are able to play off their man because we are playing our "loose" man up the field, and around the ball i.e they are playing a form of the old 1 man extra in defence.  And like all teams they play a zone defence, but very, very well.  The closest defender comes off their man after the ball has been kicked to intercept.  Trouble is on TV all you see is one of these 3 marking the ball seemingly all on their own.  We didn't go into the match with 3 talls up forward, but they had 3 tall defenders, who have perfected the zone defence perfectly.  

Then to make it even worse Tom Mc gets taken into the ruck for the 5 or 10 minutes each quarter to give Max a break, and our tall forward consisted of ..Brown! ( who couldn't catch anything that day, despite the ball being given to him on plenty of occasions) . With only him to worry about, that left WCE's 2 other tall defenders on ...Fritsch or Melksham...

Richmond play Lynch and Reiwoldt but they also use Soldo and Nankervis in the ruck.  No robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

WCE in this game had Darling and Kennedy, but had Natanui and Hickey in the ruck.  Same deal. 

The trade off the coaching staff are making is about getting more possession around the ball.  But at the moment, the downside is while the ball goes inside the forward 50 more often, because of those possessions, we haven't got the right sized people to kick it to, or even to bring it to ground.

 

8 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

It is impossible to know what is happening on the ground, when watching it only on television. 

However, our observations are consistent about what happened in the WCE game. 

Barass/ Hurn/ McGovern are able to play off their man because we are playing our "loose" man up the field, and around the ball i.e they are playing a form of the old 1 man extra in defence.  And like all teams they play a zone defence, but very, very well.  The closest defender comes off their man after the ball has been kicked to intercept.  Trouble is on TV all you see is one of these 3 marking the ball seemingly all on their own.  We didn't go into the match with 3 talls up forward, but they had 3 tall defenders, who have perfected the zone defence perfectly.  

Then to make it even worse Tom Mc gets taken into the ruck for the 5 or 10 minutes each quarter to give Max a break, and our tall forward consisted of ..Brown! ( who couldn't catch anything that day, despite the ball being given to him on plenty of occasions) . With only him to worry about, that left WCE's 2 other tall defenders on ...Fritsch or Melksham...

Richmond play Lynch and Reiwoldt but they also use Soldo and Nankervis in the ruck.  No robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

WCE in this game had Darling and Kennedy, but had Natanui and Hickey in the ruck.  Same deal. 

The trade off the coaching staff are making is about getting more possession around the ball.  But at the moment, the downside is while the ball goes inside the forward 50 more often, because of those possessions, we haven't got the right sized people to kick it to, or even to bring it to ground.

 

In all my years of following the Dees we have always been undersized compared to the top teams except for when we had the Big Red Engine and Jimmy working in tandem. gee it gave a lift to their teamates and the fans.

On 5/21/2020 at 8:18 PM, Demonland said:

 

Huge if true.

I also hear there may be a new highly contagious respiratory virus coming out of China, it's early days but let's just wait a few more months to see what it is before doing anything about it.

Edited May 25, 20205 yr by Clint Bizkit

Waiting to see if we will ever get the ‘connection between mids and forwards’ right is annoyingly similar to the wait for Ben Simmons’ jump shot.

2 minutes ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Waiting to see if we will ever get the ‘connection between mids and forwards’ right is annoyingly similar to the wait for Ben Simmons’ jump shot.

he shoots with the wrong hand!!

There is an Ask The Coach video on the club’s website and the first question to Goody was why can’t we replicate the high scoring of 2018?

Goody’s answer was clubs are defending differently to 2018 and the system used by teams is a lot harder to break down. They are working hard to find an offence to break those systems down. Hopefully we see that over the next 4 weeks.

Was also asked about Bennell. Still a lot of hurdles to overcome but has done everything asked of him. We will see him at some stage as an inside mid or forward of centre. 

On 5/24/2020 at 2:18 PM, titan_uranus said:

To me, the most revealing part of what Mahoney said was the bit where he talked about teams winning when they keep the ball in their forward 50/half.

Are they confusing cause and effect?

Teams like RFC and WCE presumably have the ball in their forward 50 more than (say) GCS.

Does that mean all you have to do is get the ball into your 50 (by any means) as much as RFC and WCE do, and you will then automatically score as much as them? The stats don't lie!

The other way around is, if you have a functioning game plan, and a forward line with an effective system, you will get the ball in your forwards' hands more, and as a consequence the ball will likely be in your forward 50 more than a team with a primitive game plan and dysfunctional forward line.

Round 1 showed a team playing to a system very comfortably putting away a team executing high energy chaos. When their system clicked, they put the match to bed in 10 minutes, then put on their jammies and slippers and waited for the clock to run out. When ours clicked, we slogged our guts out for minutes on end for each score.

Yet we beat them easily on inside 50s. Must be baffling for our brains trust, when the stats clearly show that high inside 50s correlate with high scores.

Our game plan of winning contested possession and bombing it in to the forward line will be more effective when HB & Kozzi are floating around.