Lever must have thought his Xmas had come early with our 4 year deal.  
The Crows then got two first round picks in 2017 and 2018.  

Hard to think of any intercept defender on big $$$$ in top 4-5 in their club and were traded in for 2 x 1st rounders. 
 

Hope Jake steps up as he is capable of much better.  He is only 24.  Might need to get rid of the 1970s touche as well. 

Our highest paid player doesn't even know how to man a mark....

He’s just going tonight. Needs to be stronger in the marking contest. Getting pushed aside too easily. 

47 minutes ago, Elegt said:

Our highest paid player doesn't even know how to man a mark....

What a load of crap!

Im one of the first to payout on poor defence but he forced a player with more toe than himself outside towards the boundary. He did nothing wrong defensive wise.

It’s a long shot to nail that kick and if Weller missed that shot he would of looked like a selfish galah instead he nailed it. Turns out it was a good goal.

Your ongoing criticism of Lever is genuinely unhealthy.

 

He’s hardly setting the world on fire tonight but he’s had a couple intercept marks. 

Should have got one more but May and him both clashed - at least they both wanted it.

Very happy with Oscar tonight, looks quicker and stronger in the air. Him in definitely helps May/Lever.

I love you Jake Lever ❤

Signs of life tonight. Not buying the idea Smith was the problem although Oscar is more predictable. 

Our best midfield defending and forward pressure which gave him more chances.

Still don’t think Hibbo and Jetta can play in the same side and Lockhart is struggling, so the half back line needs reinforcements. 
 

Really for Lever he just had to hold his marks which means a few things have to happen: One - stopping his own team mates spoiling him. 2 - setting up the pressure. 3- Jake has to jump and be strong in the air, he’s still not elevating with conviction. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Really for Lever he just had to hold his marks which means a few things have to happen: One - stopping his own team mates spoiling him. 2 - setting up the pressure. 3- Jake has to jump and be strong in the air, he’s still not elevating with conviction. 

Agree with this.  I’ve been saying his contested marking is non existent for reasons above. He is a good player and fits better as 3rd defender 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Signs of life tonight. Not buying the idea Smith was the problem although Oscar is more predictable. 

Our best midfield defending and forward pressure which gave him more chances.

Really for Lever he just had to hold his marks which means a few things have to happen: One - stopping his own team mates spoiling him. 2 - setting up the pressure. 3- Jake has to jump and be strong in the air, he’s still not elevating with conviction. 

I half agree Smith was not the problem (in terms of Lever's form), at least not against the tigers.

Why i say half agree is that whilst as you have pointed out Smith was Riewollt's direct opponent for the whole game (and played him close) he didn't play the same role as Omac. I can't recall the role he played against the blues the Cats but IIRC it was more of an intercept role and less directly accountable for one player? 

Omac plays deep and often sits back alone as a last line sweeper and lets his man push up the ground. Not all the time of couse and really only when the ball is moving up and down the ground (eg not from centre square or forward of centre stoppages).

And sometimes as a result ends up taking another big (eg swapping with May who might be pushing up to cover omac's man), or other free opposition players or having to hit a pack and spoil (something he is really good at as evidenced by his high number of one percenters). It is why he sometimes looks like he is caught out as he has to make ground to get to a contest (as he is not directly standing an opponent), a challenge made more difficult by his lack of speed.

The role Omac plays requires good defensive skills and ability to read the play in both directions to judge when, or if to drop back. And no doubt it is a position that has its challenges as the players are often left exposed.

Smith doesn't have the footy iq yet to play the role. And didn't. And as result Lever played much deeper than he normally would and  others filled in whn required (which is why Jetta ended up manning Mckay at one point), though they didn't really replace Omacs role as such.

So it is more a structural, set up issue than being about Smith per se. And i think tonight you could see how that structure helps Lever. It enabled to him to play much higher and also push up the ground more as Omac can offer some protection if the ball gets past him and May. It meant he could be more mobile, more creative and more attacking. Which is how we need t him play - and why i thought it was a bad move to change their back six and adjust their defensive structure,

All of which relates to Lever's marking. I agree with you three points, but i'd another. He is a much, much better mark when he is moving at pace toward the contest. He seems to read it so much better than when he has to prop and wait underneath it. Hence his ability to take intercept marks. And having a player like  Omac, who as you say is appreciable, who knows how to play that full back, sweeper role enables him to be more mobile and on the move more.And mark it more often. 

A final thing about his marking. I had a chuckle when Lever at one point took a very simple chest mark 20 metres out from their goals.(though it looked as if it was wobbling in the air - coming off after the game he was laughing and seemingly pretending to take a chest mark, and i wondered if it was about that mark) and i think Brown said that is why we got him to the club. We want a bit more than simple chest mark!

With OMac in, Lever looked more the player he was at Adelaide ie. a good one..

8 hours ago, binman said:

A final thing about his marking. I had a chuckle when Lever at one point took a very simple chest mark 20 metres out from their goals.(though it looked as if it was wobbling in the air - coming off after the game he was laughing and seemingly pretending to take a chest mark, and i wondered if it was about that mark) and i think Brown said that is why we got him to the club. We want a bit more than simple chest mark!

I did too, binman. Brown's a terrible commentator and that was a perfect example.

On the OMac/Smith thing, if there is any link between OMac and Lever's improved game last night I suspect it is one of trust.

Smith didn't do a terrible job on Riewoldt but I don't think he's trustworthy as a defender. What you see with OMac, whether you like it or not, is what you get. I think that's important for both May and Lever - we have a system in the back half and I would trust OMac to play his role far more than Smith who has a tendency to, Frost-like, run and jump and get distracted too much.

The albatross around Jake Lever’s neck is not going anywhere, anytime soon...

Any observations/criticisms about his games will always be held up against the backdrop of the $$$$ we paid for him, which mean “average to solid” efforts become deemed as “not good enough”. 

Personally I don’t think we’ll ever see Lever play like we hope a $600k footballer should. He was simply paid way too much, but that’s not on him. For our own sanity we’d be best to try and erase his salary from our minds and view him in a different light - that of a player on an average AFL wage. Those who say things along the lines of “Why isn’t this guy playing to earn his massive paycheque??”  Well, he’s trying to but the problem is the club buggered it up, and he’s not a player that belongs in the tax bracket he’s in. But should we have expected him to say “C’mon guys, I’m good but I’m not THAT good. Let’s make it $300k” at the negotiating table? 
 

The next time Lever puts in a non-game I will try to remind myself to spare him some shade and turn my surly gaze to our list managers and his agent. 

I will say though, he is a mostly dreadful kick. This alone should have been discussed in the negotiations and gone some of the way to reduce his paycheque to a more reasonable figure. 
 

Oh, and that moustache is doing him no favours (unless he’s secretly running a boiled sweets shop at Sovereign Hill). 

Edited July 12, 20204 yr by Mel Bourne

Agree with all of the above. Who cares what we paid for him. It's done now.

A big problem with his kicking, and yet another reason why it was folly to play Smith ahead of omac (as Smith has the same problem), is that he has zero confidence in his ability to cross the ball to the fat side with a 40 - 50 metre kick. And so rarely does. 

That creates an issue and that kick is an important tool to break a zone.and set up scoring chains And the alternative is often a predictable kick down the line to a contest.

 

On 6/13/2020 at 9:32 PM, Megatron said:

Haha. Clearly not going by this article. 

Have a read and educate yourself. Remember this article was in 2017. His last year with the crows in which he played a pivotal role in them making it to the Grand Final and why we paid what we did. 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/121080/why-are-clubs-so-keen-to-lure-jake-lever

The 195cm defender has taken the most intercept marks (36) of any player in the competition since round three, placing him ahead of pre-eminent interceptors Alex Rance (Richmond), Jeremy Howe (Collingwood) and Michael Hurley (Essendon).

Lever has conceded just three goals in nine games – the best return of any key defender who has played six or more games in 2017.

Garbage article with selected stats, Article written in early June of the year stated. . 

Lever was recruited pre 6-6-6 rules being announced. 

Our game plan was a full ground zone with no 1-1 direct match ups. Remember the "diamond defence" with only 4 defenders? Lever - one of the competitions best intercept marls - was to play a pivotal role in that game plan, alongside OMac (whose best attribute is reading the flight of the ball and knowing when to go to the contest and worst is his 1 on 1 defending).

It is worth noting that this game plan also involved extra numbers at the contest to win it in close, thus the focus on contested ball winners in drafts.

We were blindsided by that rule change, and it hurt us more than other teams due to our game plan.

The year after 6-6-6 came in we went out to get Steven May, a strong 1 on 1 defender, to try and balance the back line. 

 

 

Remember how dominant Jeff White was when we drafted him? Long run up, great leap over the top, but not strong and was short for a ruck. The AFL changed the rule to bring in the centre circle to prevent knee injuries, but it also reduced his effectiveness in the centre circle. 

Edited September 12, 20204 yr by deanox

He needs to grow a mullet to with that dirty moustache.

5 hours ago, deanox said:

Lever was recruited pre 6-6-6 rules being announced. 

Our game plan was a full ground zone with no 1-1 direct match ups. Remember the "diamond defence" with only 4 defenders? Lever - one of the competitions best intercept marls - was to play a pivotal role in that game plan, alongside OMac (whose best attribute is reading the flight of the ball and knowing when to go to the contest and worst is his 1 on 1 defending).

It is worth noting that this game plan also involved extra numbers at the contest to win it in close, thus the focus on contested ball winners in drafts.

We were blindsided by that rule change, and it hurt us more than other teams due to our game plan.

The year after 6-6-6 came in we went out to get Steven May, a strong 1 on 1 defender, to try and balance the back line. 

Remember how dominant Jeff White was when we drafted him? Long run up, great leap over the top, but not strong and was short for a ruck. The AFL changed the rule to bring in the centre circle to prevent knee injuries, but it also reduced his effectiveness in the centre circle. 

Sorry but I can't abide this argument that somehow Goody was a genious and we recruited for a game plan and then lo and behold we were completely flumoxed by an AFL rule change.

I don't buy it. It's pathetic and yet another excuse for our mentally fragile midgets.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Sorry but I can't abide this argument that somehow Goody was a genious and we recruited for a game plan and then lo and behold we were completely flumoxed by an AFL rule change.

I don't buy it. It's pathetic and yet another excuse for our mentally fragile midgets.

Doesn't it fit in entirely with one of your other major criticisms of Goodwin: he's a poor and inflexible tactician?

Built a list and game plan to do one thing, rule changes prevented it and he's not been able to adjust.