Cause, Treatment, and Consequence

[dworship 3,342]

37 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Dear Demonland - I have a problem I hope you can help me with:

THE CAUSE: I’ve read this discussion and I don’t know if I am in the 3% astute category or the 97% non-astute group, and it’s worrying me. If I call myself astute, then I am possibly labelling myself as arrogant or elitist. If I say I am not astute, then surely I’m belittling myself, perhaps unfairly (although maybe not).

Can you please help?

As DL hasn't replied I'll have a crack!

You appear self aware so you're not a narcissist.

You should be able to move into the 3% category although your ability to stay there is subject to a number of factors.

Expect an Invoice

[binman 37,763]

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

To me our first quarter was based around fast ball movement with high pressure, after that we went into slow ball movement and pressure dropped off.

Slow ball movement just allows your opposition to set up in front of the ball.  When that happens the good sides have the ability to move the ball and make the defensive team to shift, they keep doing this until they find a hole in the defensive trap.  Issue we have when we try to control the ball we usually turn it over across half back or the middle of the ground, once that happens you will get scored against.

Big concern for me is we dominated whilst we controlled the clearances as soon as that balanced out we couldn't score. I don't know why Jackson wasn't used in more centre bounces, something different a bloke that cab jump over you like Nic Nat compared to height and size of Max Gawn.  To me they can compliment each other and on Saturday we should have used the switch more especially after quarter time

Some really good points. 

Our fast ball movement and pressure gave us all the momentum. I think we had 8 or so inside 50s before their first.

At quarter time Teague's focus would have been that priority one is stop our momentum by firstly slowing down our ball movement and therefore the game (as opposed to getting the momentum back by attacking and scoring themselves). To do so he dropped a player back. And no doubt demanded his team increase their pressure (which was woeful in the first quarter). 

Then the second quarter become an arm wrestle. As you say when the game slowed down and there was less space in our forward line we repeatedly turned the ball over. And the big concern is that has long been an issue for us. A combination of poor kicks and poor decision makers.

If we had won that arm wrestle in the second and scored a couple more goals their approach in the second half would have had to change. They would have had to attack to bridge the gap. As it was they could simply keep chipping away at the deficit. Which is why it was so painful to watch. Only trac stood up and had the courage to attack. Everyone else seemed happy to play for time. May said as much in a presser yesterday. 

Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck. Perfect opportunity as their ruckman is also young. And his leap provides a point of difference and unpredictability and would have stopped them simply sharking Maxy's hit outs as they started doing after the first quarter  (what is that about?- it seems to happen all the time).

As DeeZephr pointed out we barely took any contested marks up forward. Tmac didn't have one, nor did Jackson. Playing Jackson in the ruck would have allowed Maxy could go forward and provide a much needed contested marking option and create some scoring opportunities and wrest the momentum back. 

On momentum it didn't appear we tried anything tactically to get it back or at the least stop theirs. How about Harley deep out of the square allowing Fritter to play high half forward and giving him chop out from Jones, who was killing him. Or Smith up forward and Fritter back. Or May and Tmac swapping. Something.

Oliver was beating Cripps, their best mid by a country mile (arguably close to the best in the league). What did Teague do? Move him  forward. And it almost won them the game.

I'm no goody knocker, and the risk of giving grist to the mill of those who are, tactically he (and Richo to be fair) did not have great day.

Edited June 17, 2020 by binman

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Good thread @dworship.  Here is where I sit based on your post and others.

Goodwin can clearly coach.  He has shown that he has the ability to create a gameplan that we can implement effectively.  2018 is obviously the perfect example of this.  You don't get to a prelim on luck alone.  He was able to put together tactics that were simple enough for the players to follow, and follow well, and we were able to generate some fantastic results because of it (the winning streak in the middle of the season, wins on the road, two finals victories against experienced sides etc.)

However, 2019 and now 2020 is where Goodwin needs to go from being a good coach to a great coach.  It's been discussed ad nauseum here for a while, but there were large factors involved in our horror 2019 - ridiculous amounts of injuries, poor player form, coaches not adjusting the gameplan in the face of new rules and teams learning our game style etc.  2019 was a write off almost before it began, but you get the feeling that Goodwin takes some responsibility for that, as he should.  

We know that we are looking to change up our gameplan a little, although our core focus on contested ball, pressuring to keep the ball in our half etc still remain.  It was good to see us switch the ball well, especially in the first half, and when we used the ball well our forward line seemed open and we hit targets inside 50 (Fritsch, Hunt and Trac to name a few).  

But then the second half is where Goody needs to improve.  He still hasn't gotten to the point where he can see what the other team is doing to counter us and make changes accordingly.  That is on our leaders somewhat as well, but you get the feeling that we really only have a Plan A (and maybe a Plan A.5), but that there is no real Plan B or C if the opposition are on to us and ramping up the pressure.  That, to me, is where Goodwin needs to get better.  Is he being stubborn?  Possibly.  We just have to hope he learns, and I'm willing to give him more than just one game back from the first mid season break in... well... a very long time, to see if he can do it.

I also think that we have made the necessary changes and looked to recruit accordingly - however, getting players to gel will take a little time, and patience isn't something us Melbourne supporters are known for (not now anyway).  You're right in saying that the Tigers, Eagles, Pies etc are all pretty stable lists with players who know each other and have played together regularly.  We only have that in some respects.  Compare our 2018 prelim side to our side on the weekend and it's quite different.  Compare the others and you would probably see less difference.

Either way, I think we have a sound gameplan and a good coach, but we need both of those things to become strong if we're ever going to challenge for a flag.  I think Goody has the capacity to do it, but time will tell.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

13 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

So, Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves and it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup, but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"?

Also, are we saying that in the 2 chances Goodwin and the leaders had to address the players while Carlton had the momentum that they didn't recognize this need to adapt? That's not very convincing of the ability to 'rectify' going forward.

I'm not in the sack Goody camp, yet, but this sounds like a bit of a let off for him. He makes the decisions, he deserves the heat at the moment.

 

Please explain Goodwin's game plan, how/why it has failed and what you would change it to Lord and why?

[Lord Nev 13,511]

8 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Please explain Goodwin's game plan, how/why it has failed and what you would change it to Lord and why?

I was quoting the original post there to highlight how making excuses for Goodwin based on things he controls seems like a cop out.

See below...

14 hours ago, dworship said:

Some of the more astute on here (about 3%) have noticed the change in the direction to "play on at all cost/ chaos football".

This has been evident at times and is most likely the result of what many believe is the waste of our inside 50 entries by bombing it in long - The CAUSE.

To address this the players have been told to slow down a little and be more measured (not exactly Max's words but near enough) - The TREATMENT

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

3 hours ago, binman said:

Some really good points. 

Our fast ball movement and pressure gave us all the momentum. I think we had 8 or so inside 50s before their first.

At quarter time Teague's focus would have been that priority one is stop our momentum by firstly slowing down our ball movement and therefore the game (as opposed to getting the momentum back by attacking and scoring themselves). To do so he dropped a player back. And no doubt demanded his team increase their pressure (which was woeful in the first quarter). 

Then the second quarter become an arm wrestle. As you say when the game slowed down and there was less space in our forward line we repeatedly turned the ball over. And the big concern is that has long been an issue for us. A combination of poor kicks and poor decision makers.

If we had won that arm wrestle in the second and scored a couple more goals their approach in the second half would have had to change. They would have had to attack to bridge the gap. As it was they could simply keep chipping away at the deficit. Which is why it was so painful to watch. Only trac stood up and had the courage to attack. Everyone else seemed happy to play for time. May said as much in a presser yesterday. 

Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck. Perfect opportunity as their ruckman is also young. And his leap provides a point of difference and unpredictability and would have stopped them simply sharking Maxy's hit outs as they started doing after the first quarter  (what is that about?- it seems to happen all the time).

As DeeZephr pointed out we barely took any contested marks up forward. Tmac didn't have one, nor did Jackson. Playing Jackson in the ruck would have allowed Maxy could go forward and provide a much needed contested marking option and create some scoring opportunities and wrest the momentum back. 

On momentum it didn't appear we tried anything tactically to get it back or at the least stop theirs. How about Harley deep out of the square allowing Fritter to play high half forward and giving him chop out from Jones, who was killing him. Or Smith up forward and Fritter back. Or May and Tmac swapping. Something.

Oliver was beating Cripps, their best mid by a country mile (arguably close to the best in the league). What did Teague do? Move him  forward. And it almost won them the game.

I'm no goody knocker, and the risk of giving grist to the mill of those who are, tactically he (and Richo to be fair) did not have great day.

"To do so he dropped a player back"  - But did he? How do we know that? It wasn't possible to see that on the TV broadcast and I don't recall any of the Fox commentators mentioning it. Was it mentioned on a radio broadcast or by the coaches in their press conferences later? I'd just like to find the empirical source of the claim that Carlton played with one behind the ball before accepting it as a given.

"Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck" - The problem here is that when Jackson went into the ruck for the first time towards the end of Q1 there was an immediate momentum shift towards Carlton. I suspect that's why Jackson did little work in the ruck during the game. It's quite possible that if he were given more time in the ruck, the results for us would have been worse. I accept, however, that if he's in the team, he would appear to be the best option to give Max assistance. Thankfully with 16 minute quarters Max should be able to ruck most of the day without assistance.

Edited June 17, 2020 by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

[ding 5,126]

11 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

All facts, which can’t be disputed. However, do you think that opposition coaches have also worked out how to counter our game plan and this has also gone towards our decline from 2018? 

Actually im about to do just That ET. Sounds like Wrecker is straw-clutching. (Love your work though  @Wrecker45)

Only 6 clubs had less changes than MFC during the off-season. CFC, GEEL, NMFC, RFC  WCE and The Dogs. The lowest was 5 changes (Dogs) and the highest of that group was 8 (Eagles)

We had 9 changes... the same as 5 other clubs.

6 teams had more changes than us. The highest being The Swannies with 12.

So we are right in the middle of list change numbers.

If we had a mini-rebuild, so did 11 other clubs.

If Goodwin cant find a way to get inside our players heads and get the best out of them, we are going to need a genuine rebuild before his contract is up. Too many seem comfortable "cruising".  One of the interviews in the day or 2 after the game said that the players felt like they had a bit left in the tank after the game. I couldnt believe our team hadnt given it everything, particularly as they were being over-run. As someone else said in another post on here, MFC arent right in the head. If its not on the Coach to make sure that happens, and we are relying on players to do it themselves we are in for a world of hurt. Nobody on our team knows what effort it takes to win a premiership so we dont have that kind of on-field leadership. It has to come from Goodwin or it wont come at all.

Edited June 17, 2020 by ding
typos

[Surfer Dee 210]

Pretty spot on to me. Our game plan was solid when it was new in 2018. Teams adapted and we were underdone. We have a powerful inside mid team, so we need a game plan to take advantage of that. 2020 game plan looks to me to be something like 70% of the contest focus of 2018, and then a 30% shift to controlling the ball on the outside. It’s a solid plan with our list. No game plan will ever work if players are second guessing themselves like we did in the second half on the weekend. 

I’m not saying this gameplan will work. Just that on paper, it makes sense. I mostly just think that in general we’re not comfortable being the hunted. We’re good when we’re behind or early in the game but once we’re the favourites and have expectations to win we crumble. That’s what Goodwin needs to address. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,407]

42 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

 

But then the second half is where Goody needs to improve.  He still hasn't gotten to the point where he can see what the other team is doing to counter us and make changes accordingly.  That is on our leaders somewhat as well, but you get the feeling that we really only have a Plan A (and maybe a Plan A.5), but that there is no real Plan B or C if the opposition are on to us and ramping up the pressure.  That, to me, is where Goodwin needs to get better.  Is he being stubborn?  Possibly.  We just have to hope he learns

This is what he should have learnt under Roos, Anticipating what his opposition is going to do and having a counter plan ready. 
i haven’t seen this side of his coaching at all, and it is what concerns me. 
4 years is a reasnoable time to see what someone can do. 
 

Anyone can fly a Plane these days when the systems are all functioning at the optimum performance. 
The great Pilots can land a Plane when the pressure is unpredictable and the Cockpit is in manual over ride. 
 

i didn’t see any innovation coming from the Melbourne Box after Halftime, so can Goodwin really coach?

We will know fairly soon i think

[Wiseblood 24,636]

@ding - good points re: list turnover, but how many of those teams had their new additions in their 22 on the weekend?

Off the top of my head, we had Tomlinson, Langdon, Rivers, Jackson and Bennell in there (not to mention someone like May who has played less than 10 games for us at this point), and we also had Pickett play in Round 1.  Not asking you to actually sift through each team and look at those stats, but it would be interesting all the same.  Some of those teams mentioned still might have played very stable Round 1 teams of players who were already on their list and had their 'new' additions not in the side at all, and thus they have more time to train, gel etc.  

Just a thought.

[drdrake 3,035]

21 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

"To do so he dropped a player back"  - But did he? How do we know that? It wasn't possible to see that on the TV broadcast and I don't recall any of the Fox commentators mentioning it. Was it mentioned on a radio broadcast or by the coaches in their press conferences later? I'd just like to find the empirical source of the claim that Carlton played with one behind the ball before accepting it as a given.

"Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck" - The problem here is that when Jackson went into the ruck for the first time towards the end of Q1 there was an immediate momentum shift towards Carlton. I suspect that's why Jackson did little work in the ruc during the game. It's quite possible that if he were given more time in the ruck, the results for us would have been worse. I accept, however, that if he's in the team, he would appear to be the best option to give Max assistance. Thankfully with 16 minute quarters Max should be able to ruck most of the day without assistance.

On the top point, our game plan is to push a forward into our midfield.  We play a 5 even 4 man forward line to have more players around the contest.  The issue is as and has been for since Neitz Retired, we don't have a dominant key forward that demands opposition players attention.  Tmac was getting smashed one on one, to the point he wasn't even bringing the ball to ground he was getting out marked.  When you don't have that dominating forward the spare defenders just need to worry about positioning and not helping to stop.

Second point, you expect him to lose his first couple of contests but their ruckman basically rucked the whole game, we could have used Jackson to run him off his legs, that is what we drafted him for his running ability basically a midfielder that rucks.

 

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

There is a difference between game plan and players capable of achieving it.

Or fully understanding it,  or what is going on.

This is where leadership is crucial.  And why/what Lewis was doing playing with us.

[ding 5,126]

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

@ding - good points re: list turnover, but how many of those teams had their new additions in their 22 on the weekend?

Off the top of my head, we had Tomlinson, Langdon, Rivers, Jackson and Bennell in there (not to mention someone like May who has played less than 10 games for us at this point), and we also had Pickett play in Round 1.  Not asking you to actually sift through each team and look at those stats, but it would be interesting all the same.  Some of those teams mentioned still might have played very stable Round 1 teams of players who were already on their list and had their 'new' additions not in the side at all, and thus they have more time to train, gel etc.  

Just a thought.

Tomlinson, Langdon and May are all experienced players, not newbies. Werent 2 of them also named in our best? Harley also did pretty well for someone out of the game for 3 years.

So we had 3 debutants. Didnt seem to hurt us for the first 40 mins or so. Its the obvious drop off in intensity that needs to be addressed. We got to a huge lead and then put the cue in the rack. Until that stops we are going to be wallowing down near the bottom of the ladder.

Physically we are (reportedly) up with the best.

Mentally and skills-wise we are not very good to say the least.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 hours ago, ding said:

Actually im about to do just That ET. Sounds like Wrecker is straw-clutching. (Love your work though  @Wrecker45)

Only 6 clubs had less changes than MFC during the off-season. CFC, GEEL, NMFC, RFC  WCE and The Dogs. The lowest was 5 changes (Dogs) and the highest of that group was 8 (Eagles)

We had 9 changes... the same as 5 other clubs.

6 teams had more changes than us. The highest being The Swannies with 12.

So we are right in the middle of list change numbers.

If we had a mini-rebuild, so did 11 other clubs.

If Goodwin cant find a way to get inside our players heads and get the best out of them, we are going to need a genuine rebuild before his contract is up. Too many seem comfortable "cruising".  One of the interviews in the day or 2 after the game said that the players felt like they had a bit left in the tank after the game. I couldnt believe our team hadnt given it everything, particularly as they were being over-run. As someone else said in another post on here, MFC arent right in the head. If its not on the Coach to make sure that happens, and we are relying on players to do it themselves we are in for a world of hurt. Nobody on our team knows what effort it takes to win a premiership so we dont have that kind of on-field leadership. It has to come from Goodwin or it wont come at all.

When you say changes what does than mean?

Is it is like bringing in Weid who has played for us before or us bringing in Trent Rivers who hasn't. 

There is a big difference.

[binman 37,763]

4 hours ago, dworship said:

It's always interesting starting a thread on here and stirring the pot with a throw away line or two. But I need to be careful if I don't want the point of the thread to be missed. Sad really that it's taken till Dee Z to understand what the thread was about. I have to take some ownership of that.

The thread was supposed to be about unintended variables/ consequences (there was a hint in the title) and how that could effect the way we play. Also, that time playing and playing together appears to be the most likely way of addressing the issues.

The comment to Lord Nev about his relationship to SWYL somewhat derailed the thread, although there are striking similarities. Waldorf and Statler come to mind.

Perhaps if you were 97% less obtuse people will understand what it is you are actually trying to say.

I think you will find being 97% less condescending might help too (i mean 'Sad really that it's taken till Dee Z to understand what the thread was about'- really?).

Take some ownership of that.

[binman 37,763]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

"To do so he dropped a player back"  - But did he? How do we know that? It wasn't possible to see that on the TV broadcast and I don't recall any of the Fox commentators mentioning it. Was it mentioned on a radio broadcast or by the coaches in their press conferences later? I'd just like to find the empirical source of the claim that Carlton played with one behind the ball before accepting it as a given.

 

Fair question. I heard Hunt say it post match, when he said the following:

“I think they got one extra back which we didn’t deal with as best as we could, and we sort of just made some crucial mistakes, especially going forward.

I guess that is not completely proof, given he says i think but i thought i heard another player say it too (may maybe?).

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

2 hours ago, drdrake said:

On the top point, our game plan is to push a forward into our midfield.  We play a 5 even 4 man forward line to have more players around the contest.  The issue is as and has been for since Neitz Retired, we don't have a dominant key forward that demands opposition players attention.  Tmac was getting smashed one on one, to the point he wasn't even bringing the ball to ground he was getting out marked.  When you don't have that dominating forward the spare defenders just need to worry about positioning and not helping to stop.

Second point, you expect him to lose his first couple of contests but their ruckman basically rucked the whole game, we could have used Jackson to run him off his legs, that is what we drafted him for his running ability basically a midfielder that rucks.

 

I know that used to be the plan before the 6-6-6 rule when we had a forward running off the half-back line for every centre bounce. I didn't like it then because when we got the ball we were outnumbered in the forward line so the tactic appeaed doomed from the outset. If we're still doing something similar, I didn't pick that up on the weekend. And if we are, I still don't like it.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

Fair question. I heard Hunt say it post match, when he said the following:

“I think they got one extra back which we didn’t deal with as best as we could, and we sort of just made some crucial mistakes, especially going forward.

I guess that is not completely proof, given he says i think but i thought i heard another player say it too (may maybe?).

Fair answer. While Hunt may not have been correct, I'll assume on face value that he is and therefore I'm satisfied we have an empirical source.

I am not having a go at the TV networks when I say this, but there is such a big difference in understanding the game (and for me, that means enjoing it) when watching it live at the ground compared with on TV. Sure, I think the TV networks could do a significantly better job, but I also understand that there are constraints they have to work within. Having said that, let me reiterate what I've pleaded for before. Please give us more wide screen shots and fewer close ups. I don't need to be able to decipher the players' tatts,  admire their muscle definition and blanche at their spittle. I'd rather see the structure of the game.  

[binman 37,763]

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Fair answer. While Hunt may not have been correct, I'll assume on face value that he is and therefore I'm satisfied we have an empirical source.

I am not having a go at the TV networks when I say this, but there is such a big difference in understanding the game (and for me, that means enjoing it) when watching it live at the ground compared with on TV. Sure, I think the TV networks could do a significantly better job, but I also understand that there are constraints they have to work within. Having said that, let me reiterate what I've pleaded for before. Please give us more wide screen shots and fewer close ups. I don't need to be able to decipher the players' tatts,  admire their muscle definition and blanche at their spittle. I'd rather see the structure of the game.  

Could not agree more. Its not just the frustrating camera angles, though that is annoying. The lack of explanation about tactics, positioning etc etc is infuriating. I mean what are their so called special comments people paid to do?

[tiers 2,761]

Too many words. Too much thought.

We started well, forgot what to do and just fell over the line.

The solution. Stick to our structures and patterns and don't worry about their's. If we are better, we will win. If not, we won't.

It was a demon failing in the past to play to the oppo's game. Should stop and play our own game.

 

[tiers 2,761]

Re the picture. Our great game is too broad to be captured on a tv screen Sometimes when at the ground and high enough in the stands it is possible to read the play over the whole ground. Even half the ground is too big for tv.

It's a function of the shape of the screen relative to the shape of the ground. TV works better for the inferior sports that are played on grounds that at the same shape as the tv. That's why our great game is so much better to watch at the ground. Better still in the stands.

As for the so called expert commentary - the best has been Dermo who is prepared to describe what is happening on the ground but sadly the producers rarely match the picture to his words. The rest are just noise.

[ding 5,126]

31 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

When you say changes what does than mean?

Is it is like bringing in Weid who has played for us before or us bringing in Trent Rivers who hasn't. 

There is a big difference.

List changes.

Sorry i thought i made that obvious Wrecker. You mentioned mini-rebuild when we had no more list changes than the median. 3 of or our additions had played senior footy before. I was pointing out that if 9 list changes was a mini-rebuild then 12 clubs had the same Mini-rebuild.

Unless your post was specifically related to the changes just for last weeks game i dont see how we were worse off than most of the league.

[george_on_the_outer 6,944]

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

"To do so he dropped a player back"  - But did he? How do we know that? It wasn't possible to see that on the TV broadcast and I don't recall any of the Fox commentators mentioning it. Was it mentioned on a radio broadcast or by the coaches in their press conferences later? I'd just like to find the empirical source of the claim that Carlton played with one behind the ball before accepting it as a given.

Jayden Hunt confirmed it in the post match interview at 0.37:

 

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/705201/rd-2-jayden-hunt-post-match?videoId=705201&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1592039984001&tagNames=AFLClubExclusive:No

[Diamond_Jim 11,676]

25 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I am not having a go at the TV networks when I say this, but there is such a big difference in understanding the game (and for me, that means enjoing it) when watching it live at the ground compared with on TV. Sure, I think the TV networks could do a significantly better job, but I also understand that there are constraints they have to work within. Having said that, let me reiterate what I've pleaded for before. Please give us more wide screen shots and fewer close ups. I don't need to be able to decipher the players' tatts,  admire their muscle definition and blanche at their spittle. I'd rather see the structure of the game.

There's an overhead camera and two behind the goal cameras that are constantly on

In these days of streaming it's not too much to have those angles available on replay for anyone who wants to watch them.

The revenue model could be designed but I doubt that the cost would be more than six hours of techo time per match plus the platform app itself.

Dare I say the clubs could do it free for members this year in lieu of their wasted memberships.

[sue 8,409]

21 minutes ago, tiers said:

Re the picture. Our great game is too broad to be captured on a tv screen Sometimes when at the ground and high enough in the stands it is possible to read the play over the whole ground. Even half the ground is too big for tv.

It's a function of the shape of the screen relative to the shape of the ground. TV works better for the inferior sports that are played on grounds that at the same shape as the tv. That's why our great game is so much better to watch at the ground. Better still in the stands.

As for the so called expert commentary - the best has been Dermo who is prepared to describe what is happening on the ground but sadly the producers rarely match the picture to his words. The rest are just noise.

Of course the ground is too big to fit on a TV screen (even with HD).  But we don't need to see the whole or even half ground at a time all the time.  But why oh why do we get a close up of the player who has marked the ball or given a free rather than a shot of what options are ahead of him? 

Often the first we know of leads is a split second before the mark/spoil happens.  No idea how the player managed to get there.  Then there is the common close-up shot of a player running with the ball surrounded by empty green grass with no indication of any player beyond about 3 metres from him.

This has been a 'feature' of broadcasting for years and makes no sense.  WHY? Doubtless one of the marketing gurus on here can explain why the networks do it?  Is it just to provide eye candy for those so inclined?