TEAMS: Rd 05 vs Richmond

[Grimes Times 1,278]

13 hours ago, binman said:

Totes agree.

Don't need Omac

Look i know we recruited Lever to play a specific role - third man in, intercept marker floating 'round the back line, with other defensive bigs covering for him - but Lever is awesome one on one and is super, super strong through the core.

With his combination of the ability to out mark any key forward one on one and his sheer physical strength he is an elite key position defender.

He has been a revelation in this role at the dees. Week in week out he takes the best big forwards and simply out muscles them and shuts them down. Reads the ball so well in flight and just knows how to position his body to beat his man one on one. 

He has certainly surprised me as i always thought that he was terrible one on one and could be easily shoved aside even by medium forwards, like say a Rowan.

And playing Lever as key defender against opposition bigs is just so smart as, one he is just terrific at it and two we need an intercept defender and it has allowed them to bring in Smith to play that role. And like Lever he is just a natural footballer.  

With his strength Lever will monster Lynch and if he plays on Jack will be way too wily one one one. Bring it on.

 

correct Bin and this article backs you up. smart man.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-25/how-adelaide-crows-went-from-afl-top-to-bottom-in-three-years/12387620

[titan_uranus 22,922]

54 minutes ago, rjay said:

They're nothing alike 'Bob'...

Spargo doesn't have the leg speed for that role, can't hit front and square...Kossie can also take a grab (Spargo can't get off the ground) and he creates defensive pressure.

If Goodwin is serious about defence, Spargo struggles to hold a tackle and opponents know it.

They run over him like he's not there.

He's a total defensive liability.

Axis of Bob said they're similar players.

He's 100% right.

The difference between them is Pickett is, right now, much better.

But they are both on our list to do the same thing and in 2018 Spargo was doing what Pickett is now doing for us.

32 minutes ago, rjay said:

One of the greatest myths in AFL...the role.

Blight laughed at this one the other day and I agree.

The player has to be good enough...

Spargo isn't a drop of the ball player, he's a good little player at VFL/local league level...not AFL.

He's a small link up player and doesn't hit the packs.

I'm not in favour of Spargo playing this weekend but not because I think he's inherently incapable of playing AFL, like you and many others do (prejudicially and unfairly).

I'm simply not in favour because I don't think he's in form and I don't think I want him in the side at the expense of the likely candidates on the extended bench to lose their spot (Hunt, Rivers, Lockhart).

[Lucifers Hero 37,445]

54 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Goodwin has flagged the style he wants to play through the media and press conferences. We want to attack quickly with a tall to bring it to ground and then a fleet of smalls and mediums to take advantage of the space created behind the contest at half forward.

Nice in theory.  The problem with flagging is that ops know it and develop counter tactics and fill the space behind the contest.  eg set up for small defenders to be goal side of our small forwards and plonk someone in the goal square. 

Our small fwds may win the contest but they will have nowhere to go (ie no space behind the contest) and will have to kick/hand ball blindly to get through/over the pack, with the most likely result being clearance by the opp, ball up, a point or fall into the arms of the guy in the goal square.  Low percentage goal scoring style, imv.

And as we seem unable to adjust tactics within games we are unlikely to find an alternative.  Unless we start to bomb it long...

[binman 39,225]

27 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

How so?

Because knowing how we planned to play Scott simply implemented a go slow, keepings off game plan aimed to stymie our strategy (fast ball movement, lots of inside 50s and trapping it inside 50) and stopping us playing the game on our terms.

And we seemingly did nothing to disrupt Scott's strategy.

[Demons11 6,404]

41 minutes ago, rjay said:

He shouldn't, but like the others he should be doing this in the senior team where he is needed.

Wallace mentioned we had players not up to AFL level, he didn't name them so let me have a go.

From this weeks squad....Spargo, Smith, AVB, Hannan, Tommy Mac, Melk (on current form), Hunt, Brown

Young players still learning the game...Rivers, Lockhart, Jackson

Why should he be doing this in the seniors? The players you have listed as not AFL standard really shows your level of knowledge when it comes to players.

Spargo is playing 2’s

Smith has been solid down back

AVB and Hannan played their first gameS back and you expect the world? 

T Mac’s is struggling for form but he is not the only key forward struggling and is being double teamed all game. 

Melk has had 2 games and all of a sudden he is not AFL std. ??‍♂️
 

Hunt had 1 bad game but kicked 3 against Carlton, so let’s drop him. 
 

Brown hasn’t actually played yet since the restart but let’s also discard him based on your brilliant footy knowledge. 
 

But hey let’s drop all of the above and play a bloke who has played 3 games in 3 years and should solve all our problems.  

The demonland peanut gallery in full affect at the moment. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Demons11

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

11 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Nice in theory.  The problem with flagging is that ops know it and develop counter tactics and fill the space behind the contest.  eg set up for small defenders to be goal side of our small forwards and plonk someone in the goal square. 

Our small fwds may win the contest but they will have nowhere to go (ie no space behind the contest) and will have to kick/hand ball blindly to get through/over the pack, with the most likely result being clearance by the opp, ball up, a point or fall into the arms of the guy in the goal square.  Low percentage goal scoring style, imv.

And as we seem unable to adjust tactics within games we are unlikely to find an alternative.  Unless we start to bomb it long...

Interesting.... where would you think the optimum point is for a forward entry 30, 25 or 15 metres from the goal.

I suspect it's 25 as it still gives a decent angle to kick on goal and a kick that will clear the pack with accuracy. (my question assumes we do not mark the ball)

[Grimes Times 1,278]

14 minutes ago, binman said:

Because knowing how we planned to play Scott simply implemented a go slow, keepings off game plan aimed to stymie our strategy (fast ball movement, lots of inside 50s and trapping it inside 50) and stopping us playing the game on our terms.

And we seemingly did nothing to disrupt Scott's strategy.

or

we worked our way into the game after being faced with new tactics, got better as the game went on and nearly/should have won in the end.

The fact Scott totally changed they way Geelong play to counter attack our strength/game style shows we are doing something right.

[Lucifers Hero 37,445]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting.... where would you think the optimum point is for a forward entry 30, 25 or 15 metres from the goal.

I suspect it's 25 as it still gives a decent angle to kick on goal and a kick that will clear the pack with accuracy. (my question assumes we do not mark the ball)

I'm not sure there is an optimum point in the context of the playing style Axis of Bob described ie to bring the ball to ground and take advantage of space behind CHF as I feel it is a low percentage play especially now that we have gramophoned it to the world.

To me it pays to have a balanced fwd line that provides a variety of avenues to goal from which a shot on goal within the 50m arc can be taken.

 

[Axis of Bob 10,440]

7 minutes ago, binman said:

Because knowing how we planned to play Scott simply implemented a go slow, keepings off game plan aimed to stymie our strategy (fast ball movement, lots of inside 50s and trapping it inside 50) and stopping us playing the game on our terms.

And we seemingly did nothing to disrupt Scott's strategy.

So Geelong's slow ball movement was specifically a tactic to stop our forwards attacking when we got the ball? I think you're conflating two issues. Geelong tried something different to deal with our strong defensive press. 

I think our personnel showed how we were going to play, with one key forward and a whole bunch of (generally quick) mediums. It's no surprise. We just didn't use the ball well enough when we created that space. I think Spargo will come in to help us with this problem. 

Also, as an aside, the much vaunted chip kick possession style of attack resulted in the minor premiers scoring 7 goals for the game. Yes, we should have defended more aggressively to win the ball back sooner, but it was hardly an abject failure of defence. We just didn't take our opportunities well enough.

[titan_uranus 22,922]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

I'm not sure there is an optimum point in the context of the playing style Axis of Bob described ie to bring the ball to ground and take advantage of space behind CHF as I feel it is a low percentage play especially now that we have gramophoned it to the world.

To me it pays to have a balanced fwd line that provides a variety of avenues to goal from which a shot on goal within the 50m arc can be taken.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint about us "grammophoning" our game plan to the world.

Almost every good club has an identifiable brand. We know how St Kilda tries to move the ball. We know how GWS, Richmond and West Coast tried to move the ball the last few years.

Why is the issue that we've "grammophoned" our game? Isn't the real issue a combination of two things: we didn't execute our own game plan well (e.g. missed kicks inside 50, poor choices, etc.) and we didn't adapt to an opponent to tried to take that away from us?

[titan_uranus 22,922]

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

So Geelong's slow ball movement was specifically a tactic to stop our forwards attacking when we got the ball? I think you're conflating two issues. Geelong tried something different to deal with our strong defensive press. 

I think our personnel showed how we were going to play, with one key forward and a whole bunch of (generally quick) mediums. It's no surprise. We just didn't use the ball well enough when we created that space. I think Spargo will come in to help us with this problem. 

Also, as an aside, the much vaunted chip kick possession style of attack resulted in the minor premiers scoring 7 goals for the game. Yes, we should have defended more aggressively to win the ball back sooner, but it was hardly an abject failure of defence. We just didn't take our opportunities well enough.

I agree.

Much of Geelong's slow ball movement was designed to break through what has traditionally been a poor zone of ours. It held up relatively well on the weekend.

When we had the ball, Geelong's slow ball movement became irrelevant. The main two reasons we didn't score were our own failures (missed kicks, poor choices going inside, no leading forwards, no tall forwards the usual 2018-20 Melbourne stuff) and Geelong's strong defensive set up.

We still needed to adapt to how Geelong were playing, but the bigger issues from that game were what we did with ball in hand, as opposed to in defence.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

So Geelong's slow ball movement was specifically a tactic to stop our forwards attacking when we got the ball? I think you're conflating two issues. Geelong tried something different to deal with our strong defensive press. 

I think our personnel showed how we were going to play, with one key forward and a whole bunch of (generally quick) mediums. It's no surprise. We just didn't use the ball well enough when we created that space. I think Spargo will come in to help us with this problem. 

Also, as an aside, the much vaunted chip kick possession style of attack resulted in the minor premiers scoring 7 goals for the game. Yes, we should have defended more aggressively to win the ball back sooner, but it was hardly an abject failure of defence. We just didn't take our opportunities well enough.

@Axis of Bob gets it ?

not many others do

[Mental Demons 136]

3 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

The fact Scott totally changed they way Geelong play to counter attack our strength/game style shows we are doing something right.

Yes it says we are doing one thing right. Unfortunately it also suggests are couple of other things. It shows we are one dimentional and Goodwin has not developed any plan B or way to counter the most obvious way to beat a team that can only seem to play one way. It also highlights what a poor game day coach Goodwin is. We did enough to win talent wise, just really badly coached.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Just now, Mental Demons said:

Yes it says we are doing one thing right. Unfortunately it also suggests are couple of other things. It shows we are one dimentional and Goodwin has not developed any plan B or way to counter the most obvious way to beat a team that can only seem to play one way. It also highlights what a poor game day coach Goodwin is. We did enough to win talent wise, just really badly coached.

Can you name the 18 different Plan A across the comp and also every teams plan B's

[rjay 24,116]

13 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Why should he be doing this in the seniors? The players you have listed as not AFL standard really shows your level of knowledge when it comes to players.

Spargo is playing 2’s

Smith has been solid down back

AVB and Hannan played their first gameS back and you expect the world? 

T Mac’s is struggling for form but he is not the only key forward struggling and is being double teamed all game. 

Melk has had 2 games and all of a sudden he is not AFL std. ??‍♂️
 

Hunt had 1 bad game but kicked 3 against Carlton, so let’s drop him. 
 

Brown hasn’t actually played yet since the restart but let’s also discard him based on your brilliant footy knowledge. 
 

But hey let’s drop all of the above and play a bloke who has played 3 games in 3 years and should solve all our problems.  

The demonland peanut gallery in full affect at the moment. 

I'll trust my footy knowledge on picking a player ahead of yours any day of the week.

I flagged Tommy would have these problems at the start of 2019 and nothing has changed.

He's is struggling and hasn't played at the level for nearly 2 seasons with the exception of maybe one game.

Whether it's injury or that opposition coaches have worked him out the fact is he's played a lot of poor footy and would struggle for a game in any other team.

Tommy is looking a lot like Dawes mark 2 unfortunately.

I hope Spargo plays 2's but he is in the squad this week.

AVB is hard as a cats head but is a very limited player, without injury he may have made it but the injuries have taken their toll.

Hannan was a VFL player before we grabbed him and does the odd good thing but not enough to be a consistent level AFL player.

Smith was poor in his first game, was ok last week but certainly far from a proven player.

Brown was let go by EFC, now clubs make mistakes but his first game was hardly reassuring. He's depth, not an AFL player. Should only play when the cupboard is bare.

Melk might be past it...Ronald Dale was a pretty decent player but time takes it's toll. We're not running him out any more. Melk really needs to lift, he has been at the level but this year has given zilch...is it over for him. He should be out of the team to work on some things.

Hunt is borderline, but really if we were any good he would be fringe. Unfortunately we need to play him.

The bloke who has played 3 games in 3 years is a much better prospect than the other bloke who has played a similar amount of football in 3 year that can tackle but can't kick and is a poor decision maker.

 

[Mental Demons 136]

1 minute ago, Grimes Times said:

Can you name the 18 different Plan A across the comp and also every teams plan B's

I could but I am not so much interested in other teams. I am more interested in the demon deficiencies and how they can be addressed. Suffice to say the best teams are versatile and practised in countering the play of other teams. This seems something Goodwin is not competent to institute.

[Axis of Bob 10,440]

34 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Nice in theory.  The problem with flagging is that ops know it and develop counter tactics and fill the space behind the contest.  eg set up for small defenders to be goal side of our small forwards and plonk someone in the goal square. 

......

And as we seem unable to adjust tactics within games we are unlikely to find an alternative.  Unless we start to bomb it long...

Having an opposition drop numbers away from the half forward contest and filling space behind inside the 50 would be an absolute godsend for our ability to score! It makes the first, critical contest much easier to win and then the half forward have a lot more time and space to be able to use the ball going forward or use one of the trailing midfield runners to run through the 50m arc to score. The idea about this plan is that, if played well, it's extremely hard to counter. It's like all the good teams; you know the plan but it doesn't mean you can stop it.

As for the second part, it's much more difficult to switch tactics mid game than it was previously because the tactics are so much more complex. Team defence and zones need to be coached for extended periods of time to work and you can't just change that on the fly. Remember that the tactics also have to be carried out by humans on the field, and they have a limited amount of capacity to make decisions and the decisions need to be made and acted upon instantly. It's far more difficult than going from man on man to 'throw an extra behind the ball' of yesteryear. It isn't just us, it all teams including the best and worst.

[rjay 24,116]

39 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Axis of Bob said they're similar players.

He's 100% right.

The difference between them is Pickett is, right now, much better.

But they are both on our list to do the same thing and in 2018 Spargo was doing what Pickett is now doing for us.

 

They might be on the list to do the same thing (I doubt it) but they are in no way similar. Sorry but you are both wrong.

Go and look at what Spargo did in 2018 when he came in. He worked up the ground and linked up then took the last kick to hit up the leading forward. That's what he does.

He doesn't crumb the ball, I reckon it's an innate skill that some have but can't be taught. Kossie has it, spargo doesn't...that's one reason he plays deeper and it's why we targeted him as after Garlett was moved on we had no one that could play the role.

The only similarity is they are both small.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

10 minutes ago, Mental Demons said:

I could but I am not so much interested in other teams. I am more interested in the demon deficiencies and how they can be addressed. Suffice to say the best teams are versatile and practised in countering the play of other teams. This seems something Goodwin is not competent to institute.

I could but im not going to is school yard stuff. If you can. do it but I doubt you can.

What was Hardwick plan B against Hawthorn a couple weeks ago? How did he change the style of Richmond mid game to counter Hawthorne tactics?

What do C. Scott do to change things up against Carlton. and why did it take him to 3/4 time to do it. Playing on and taking risk. Thats jnr footy Plan B and thats all Scot had.

[binman 39,225]

20 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

or

we worked our way into the game after being faced with new tactics, got better as the game went on and nearly/should have won in the end.

The fact Scott totally changed they way Geelong play to counter attack our strength/game style shows we are doing something right.

Yes that is certainly a possibility, as I noted in anorher post on this topic.

But i would argue we didnt really work our way into the game as such. We were never out of it. We simply played the game on their terms.

How uninspiring for a team promising to play fast exciting footy on a perfect day for footy at the g.

And tactically surely the point was to expose their lack of leg speed by playing to our strength. That was why we picked a fast team after all. 

But more importantly the ends didn't justify the means. We lost. Who cares how close we got.

Goodwin was specifically asked about Scott's ploy to play slow in the post game presser. He said a key learning was that we needed to press up and not allow so many uncontested marks. And they would look to do next time when faced with that tactic. That suggests to me that he wasn't happy with how we responded to Scott's tactics.

And to be honest I have a different take on what Scott's tactics mean. Sure they were designed to combat our preferred  game style. But there is little proof that style is a strength for us - apart from one quarter of football we have barely scored this season.

And I also worry that the tactic was in part employed because Scott believed, with some justification, we would be unable, or unwilling to counter it.

[Mental Demons 136]

4 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Playing on and taking risk. Thats jnr footy Plan B and thats all Scot had.

It was enough to beat us and Goodwin could do nothing about it. I am not sure what your point is.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

1 minute ago, Mental Demons said:

It was enough to beat us and Goodwin could do nothing about it. I am not sure what your point is.

Geelong never played like that against us. i think you have missed the point.

[rjay 24,116]

1 minute ago, Grimes Times said:

I could but im not going to is school yard stuff. If you can. do it but I doubt you can.

What was Hardwick plan B against Hawthorn a couple weeks ago? How did he change the style of Richmond mid game to counter Hawthorne tactics?

What do C. Scott do to change things up against Carlton. and why did it take him to 3/4 time to do it. Playing on and taking risk. Thats jnr footy Plan B and thats all Scot had.

Scott is a poor example...he's shown he can change their game around.

His game against Hawthorn was polar opposite to the one he played against us...he's a smart coach.

Their list is ageing and on the wane but they are well drilled and we didn't take it to them.

...and whilst I agree that you have a basic plan, brand or whatever, having a plan B is a bit simplistic. However you must have contingencies.

We don't seem to have them, we hit up more of the same more often than not.

 

[Razza13 13]

2 hours ago, MF-C said:

I actually think Smith played ok too down back and just played his role well. However, can I see him playing down back the rest of the year and into the future. No

Do I think he's being wasted down there? Yes

The thing is, is that we have Omac who isn't an AA defender by any stretch of the imagination but also doesn't need to be. Rarely do players get off the chain and kick bags anymore and he is an honest defender. I would 100% rather have Omac in our backline than Smith. He can take the #1 key fwd which frees up May and Lever. 

I like Smith for all this assets too - but you don't need those assets down back, if Smith was like a Sicily then yeah sure play him down there but his assets are being wasted when all he has to do is lock down a defender, why not get Omac to do that? 

Play Smith off the bench as that high half fwd? 

I really want to see Omac back in the side and I never thought I'd say that. 

Backline is far more stable with Omac, May and Lever than Smith, Lever and May. 

If i was Smith i'd be super frustrated. The team is crying out for goals and something to happen forward of centre and Smith is stuck in a back pocket....



 

Many times, Goodwin and assistant coaches said Smith can't play forward because he is too injury prone. His body isn't strong enough for defenders crashing into him from behind. Defender is his position now. Stop saying lets put smith forward.

Smith is getting better, he was solid against cats. Hawkins, ablett and dangerfield struggled to get a touch when Smith was on him.

The problem with Oscar is that he is too slow. He can't keep up with the forwards. He is good one on one when battling on the spot. But if a forward leads, oscar simply can't keep up. May and Smith are quicker and can keep up.

 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

4 minutes ago, binman said:

And I also worry that the tactic was in part employed because Scott believed, with some justification, we would be unable, or unwilling to counter it.

you may be right but Scott did say that he didn't want Gee to kick to contest or get in a shoot out because they are both a strength of ours  hence the slow chip kick style they played.