Just now, At the break of Gawn said:

Given that 4 out of the top 4 teams all have coaches who coach from the bench (including Goodwin) I think it’s a trend that’s staying.

Well he has done that for quite a while, before most of them, alright, how about a stool so he can see the forward line entries from a lot higher........

17 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

AT centre bounces our wings don't run to the defensive side. Freo were doing that on the weekend and cleaning up a fair bit of the ball from our fwd taps.

I think this was highlighted on “on the couch”. Our wingers are basically part of the stoppage cluster which means once the opposition gets through our line there’s basically no one to hold them up between our defence.

34 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

A happy clapper thread would be perfect for you

Dude, you are clearly one of the mindless whiners that spend their time clogging up this forum with your complaints and criticisms. Obviously you don’t like being called on your pointless complaining so now you want to go on the offensive to insult people and try to make yourself feel okay about constantly whining and criticising. Go ahead, Jump on that keyboard and be a warrior

5 hours ago, PartyTimeJohnny said:

Just to add to this, year we've accrued the most points to rd 11, but 45.22% of our points from 11 games has come from the bottom three developing teams. 
Raises potential for being labelled flat track bullies I reckon. 

Where did you pull those figures from?

We scored 126 against West Coast, 139 against North and 103 against Hawthorn. That's 33% of our total of 1,110.

So that's 33% of our score from 27% of our games. It's higher than 27%, but not by that much.

I posted this elsewhere but we've scored 115 vs the Dogs (highest score they've conceded all year), 82 against Brisbane in Brisbane, 134 against Sydney with its full backline, 76 against Port, in Adelaide, in the rain, 96 against Richmond, and 90 against GC. Yes, we've scored well against the bottom 3 sides, but we've also scored well against the better sides we've played.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Partly. When there is midfield pressure the ball comes in high and mostly indiscriminately. Lever and may eat that up (although Lever is missing Petty badly. He can't play the No 2 role). 

Teams have worked that out - hence we are low on the intercept number stat. They are chipping the ball to maintain control. Because we guard grass there is no/little pressure on the ball carrier.

The ball is coming in much lower and the scores against us are mainly coming from the smaller players (except for the  Ess game). If the oppo don't hit a target they force a stoppage and we are 18th in that area for stopping scores.

The whole point of the conversation has been about scores conceded from stoppages, not our inability to intercept. Perhaps our inability to intercept has meant the plays have led to stoppages, but that's a different conversation.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

AT centre bounces our wings don't run to the defensive side. Freo were doing that on the weekend and cleaning up a fair bit of the ball from our fwd taps.

They don't run forward side every time. That's just factually incorrect. That's Fox Footy handpicking a couple of moments. Watch them on Friday night.

Most of the time, they hold space and guard and play behind the stoppage, but they're, IMO, in D50, too far from the back of the stoppage, so there is space to exploit for the opposition forwards and mids, as much as there is space for our half backs to slingshot if we win it.

Edited May 30, 20232 yr by A F

The Hoyne data from Sportsday (the tweets were shared earlier) is really interesting.

We have lost three games now due to conceding goals from D50 stoppages (the Essendon game might be the same but the three he discussed were Brisbane, Port and Fremantle). In those three games, the final margin has been less than our opponents' scores from stoppages in our D50.

That's an extremely clear area that needs improvement. Our ground ball work in defensive 50 is terrible.

However, I agree with Hoyne when he argues that it's more easily fixable than struggling to prevent scores from turnover. We are ranked 1st at conceding scores from turnover whilst also being 1st for scoring from turnover. Yes, again, we've played all three rubbish sides, but we've also played the two hardest road trips, Sydney at full strength, GC on the GC, an in-form Fremantle and an in-form Essendon, whilst travelling 50% of the time in our first 10 weeks. Yes, the bottom 3 sides help, but our fixture had enough challenges that to come through that period 1st in both for/against on turnover has significance.

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Where did you pull those figures from?

We scored 126 against West Coast, 139 against North and 103 against Hawthorn. That's 33% of our total of 1,110.

So that's 33% of our score from 27% of our games. It's higher than 27%, but not by that much.

I posted this elsewhere but we've scored 115 vs the Dogs (highest score they've conceded all year), 82 against Brisbane in Brisbane, 134 against Sydney with its full backline, 76 against Port, in Adelaide, in the rain, 96 against Richmond, and 90 against GC. Yes, we've scored well against the bottom 3 sides, but we've also scored well against the better sides we've played.

The dogs struggled for the first group of games and are not the same side , swans are up and down, and the lions game if the lights had not gone out we were heading for a ten goal loss, the tigers are not the same feared side they were once were, so stats can be misleading.

31 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

The dogs struggled for the first group of games and are not the same side , swans are up and down, and the lions game if the lights had not gone out we were heading for a ten goal loss, the tigers are not the same feared side they were once were, so stats can be misleading.

And what about Hawthorn's 2015 premiership side? Or Richmond's 2017 premiership side or countless other examples. The fact is we sit 4th with the best percentage in the league. At the moment, everything else is irrelevant except Carlton this week.

13 hours ago, FlashInThePan said:

Dude, you are clearly one of the mindless whiners that spend their time clogging up this forum with your complaints and criticisms. Obviously you don’t like being called on your pointless complaining so now you want to go on the offensive to insult people and try to make yourself feel okay about constantly whining and criticising. Go ahead, Jump on that keyboard and be a warrior

You are doing an excellent impersonation of one of the mindless whiners

Pro tip. If you don't want to read opinions contrary to your own suggest you don't read footy forums.

12 hours ago, A F said:

The whole point of the conversation has been about scores conceded from stoppages, not our inability to intercept. Perhaps our inability to intercept has meant the plays have led to stoppages, but that's a different conversation.

They don't run forward side every time. That's just factually incorrect. That's Fox Footy handpicking a couple of moments. Watch them on Friday night.

Most of the time, they hold space and guard and play behind the stoppage, but they're, IMO, in D50, too far from the back of the stoppage, so there is space to exploit for the opposition forwards and mids, as much as there is space for our half backs to slingshot if we win it.

oh dear, I think you are missing the point. If there is no midfield pressure where balls are kicked high and quickly into our fwd line its difficult to intercept. 

2 hours ago, A F said:

And what about Hawthorn's 2015 premiership side? Or Richmond's 2017 premiership side or countless other examples. The fact is we sit 4th with the best percentage in the league. At the moment, everything else is irrelevant except Carlton this week.

Because we played duds, stop looking at stats and look at the game there was the hawks game this year we nearly 20 entries in the first quarter and 66 for the match but could only kick 7 goals after half time to 6 goals so tell me is that ok?.

You can believe all you want in stats I don't, it's like doing a poll you answer the questions based on what you are asked, for coaches, it's we only lost the contested possessions by 6 so thats ok even though you lost by 50 points.

I really really feel this thread is been hijacked, and getting personal. The antagonising over peoples opinions, and the 'holding' athletes and coaches to account, could really happen in other threads.

Like some of the other posters who noted it recently- this thread has been vitriol free for essentially 3 years...

Please, shift it elsewhere.

 

The leak from stoppage D50 is a bit like being a great soccer team, but for whatever reason you were poor at defending corner kicks.   Being 18th is not the end of the world, but it will cost you the odd game... which is exactly whats happened.

Structurally we don't  do a lot wrong, but the naked eye says we lose our men in the traffic on the spread away from the stoppage.  Same thing can happen on corner kicks, its 50-50 at times where the ball ends up, and if you're not right on your man its a goal scoring opportunity if it falls in their lap. 

5 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

The leak from stoppage D50 is a bit like being a great soccer team, but for whatever reason you were poor at defending corner kicks.   Being 18th is not the end of the world, but it will cost you the odd game... which is exactly whats happened.

Structurally we don't  do a lot wrong, but the naked eye says we lose our men in the traffic on the spread away from the stoppage.  Same thing can happen on corner kicks, its 50-50 at times where the ball ends up, and if you're not right on your man its a goal scoring opportunity if it falls in their lap. 

That's a really useful way of framing it.  Additionally, it seems we (the FD) have prioritized the turnover game, with an understanding that for us the 50-50 at times goes our way and presumably are prepared to lose out some of the time, with a sense that over the course of a season it will ultimately fall our way.

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

I really really feel this thread is been hijacked, and getting personal. The antagonising over peoples opinions, and the 'holding' athletes and coaches to account, could really happen in other threads.

Like some of the other posters who noted it recently- this thread has been vitriol free for essentially 3 years...

Please, shift it elsewhere.

 

Gee what is this thread called ahh  Game plans, tactics and all that jazz   and that's what has been spoken about, yes it has been highjacked by people who don't like whats been said and then they have a crack at people for it, the answer is simple don't reply it's not that hard.

I think the game plan is still in reasonable shape.

If anything, I think the last two weeks have shown why Petty needs to be played forward and we need Gawn to get back in form. We should be dominating the air with our cattle and our game fell down at times on Saturday because we dropped too many contested marks.

I like Petty forward and the rucks dropping back. Does anyone think the rucks going forward has worked? I’d of thought our forward line with Petty, Fritsch and JVR with the smalls could be highly mobile and unpredictable. Especially with Petracca playing forward as well. Otherwise I’d play Petty and the rucks across HB and bring Schache in.

I’m maintaining a soft spot for the Shac until he proves otherwise 

Edited May 31, 20232 yr by Roost it far

9 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I like Petty forward and the rucks dropping back. Does anyone think the rucks going forward has worked? I’d of thought our forward line with Petty, Fritsch and JVR with the smalls could be highly mobile and unpredictable. Especially with Petracca playing forward as well. Otherwise I’d play Petty and the rucks across HB and bring Schache in.

 

I thought it was a great move putting Petty forward but he seems awkward there, might be good at times.  I did think Tomlinson would cover for him but seems not to be in the mix.

But I think its time he went back, get the 2021 back line essentially back together,  then look at the entry into our forward 50 and our forwards.

I also think we got Schache cos the bullies did not rate him, they might be correct,  JVR  is very young and while has great potential does not walk on water yet. Still he has more energy in the 4th quarter than most

9 hours ago, jnrmac said:

oh dear, I think you are missing the point. If there is no midfield pressure where balls are kicked high and quickly into our fwd line its difficult to intercept. 

Yes... but we were talking about scores conceded from stoppages... not our ability or inability to intercept.

Edited May 31, 20232 yr by A F

7 hours ago, demon3165 said:

Because we played duds, stop looking at stats and look at the game there was the hawks game this year we nearly 20 entries in the first quarter and 66 for the match but could only kick 7 goals after half time to 6 goals so tell me is that ok?.

You can believe all you want in stats I don't, it's like doing a poll you answer the questions based on what you are asked, for coaches, it's we only lost the contested possessions by 6 so thats ok even though you lost by 50 points.

If you've read any of my posts recently, that Hawthorn side played "duds" in their first 9-10 rounds too. That's the whole point of the comparison.

You seem to equate history to stats. I'm talking history here, which is knowledge and fact.

We can break down specific stats and talk about how much we agree or disagree about the thesis that is supported by the stats, but you're living in a fictional world, where previous premiers never beat up on lowly sides, never lost games and were perfect all the way through seasons. It rarely happens 

And you're having a go at stats, but using them in your example here... 

So the 360’s watch list run by Montagna and King highlighted what some of us have already mentioned and that is our ability to win ground balls post clearance/ general play and and how we elect to go with fewer players around the ball.

I think it’s really obvious that this is a trend in the game we haven’t adopted yet and I don’t really understand why. Especially given how we are conceding so much here and putting pressure on our defence to generate our turnover.

Im not a tactician, but if many teams are doing it - Doggies have been doing it for years, then why don’t we ? Is it because of vulnerability we have?

 

14 hours ago, A F said:

If you've read any of my posts recently, that Hawthorn side played "duds" in their first 9-10 rounds too. That's the whole point of the comparison.

You seem to equate history to stats. I'm talking history here, which is knowledge and fact.

We can break down specific stats and talk about how much we agree or disagree about the thesis that is supported by the stats, but you're living in a fictional world, where previous premiers never beat up on lowly sides, never lost games and were perfect all the way through seasons. It rarely happens 

And you're having a go at stats, but using them in your example here... 

And I bet you thought we would win back to back premierships, I posted that we would not after round 9 - 10 last year, and that was based on how we played, and I will say this if we keep playing this way and don't change we won't win this year, so you can stick with stats I will back my eyes and knowledge of the game, but you are entitled to your opinion, even if you live in a fictional world...... 

On 5/31/2023 at 9:27 AM, demon3165 said:

The dogs struggled for the first group of games and are not the same side , swans are up and down, and the lions game if the lights had not gone out we were heading for a ten goal loss, the tigers are not the same feared side they were once were, so stats can be misleading.

I really dislike this sort of reasoning.

The Dogs struggled - why is it that we get no credit for that?

The Swans are "up and down" isn't even the best argument in your favour - they're largely just down. But regardless, they've only played 3 games this year with their full backline and that was Rounds 1-3. They were also full strength in Round 3 other than Hickey.

Sure, the Brisbane game could have ended very differently if the lights didn't go out, but of course we won't know for sure.

And as for Richmond, given you have said a number of times in this thread that you back your eyes over the stats, go back and re-watch their pressure on ANZAC Eve. I agree they're not like they were in 2017-20 but they brought heat that night. But even if you don't agree with me, look at the rest of their season. They've only conceded more than our 96 once this year, vs Sydney. In fact, they've only conceded one other score over 80 (89 vs the Dogs). They're averaging 78 points against from a string of opponents including Adelaide, Collingwood, GC, Geelong, Essendon and Port Adelaide. 

On 5/31/2023 at 12:36 PM, demon3165 said:

Because we played duds, stop looking at stats and look at the game there was the hawks game this year we nearly 20 entries in the first quarter and 66 for the match but could only kick 7 goals after half time to 6 goals so tell me is that ok?.

You can believe all you want in stats I don't, it's like doing a poll you answer the questions based on what you are asked, for coaches, it's we only lost the contested possessions by 6 so thats ok even though you lost by 50 points.

In response to you citing our game vs Hawthorn, what about last week, when Collingwood kicked 9 goals after half time against North who kicked 8? Is that OK?

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I really dislike this sort of reasoning.

The Dogs struggled - why is it that we get no credit for that?

The Swans are "up and down" isn't even the best argument in your favour - they're largely just down. But regardless, they've only played 3 games this year with their full backline and that was Rounds 1-3. They were also full strength in Round 3 other than Hickey.

Sure, the Brisbane game could have ended very differently if the lights didn't go out, but of course we won't know for sure.

And as for Richmond, given you have said a number of times in this thread that you back your eyes over the stats, go back and re-watch their pressure on ANZAC Eve. I agree they're not like they were in 2017-20 but they brought heat that night. But even if you don't agree with me, look at the rest of their season. They've only conceded more than our 96 once this year, vs Sydney. In fact, they've only conceded one other score over 80 (89 vs the Dogs). They're averaging 78 points against from a string of opponents including Adelaide, Collingwood, GC, Geelong, Essendon and Port Adelaide. 

In response to you citing our game vs Hawthorn, what about last week, when Collingwood kicked 9 goals after half time against North who kicked 8? Is that OK?

The pies ended up with the foot off the petal don't be fooled by the end result they did what they had to do, the dogs took several rounds to get going but they are not the same side full stop, and swans well look where they are on the ladder, the tigers well they are sitting 15th.

"Sure, the Brisbane game could have ended very differently if the lights didn't go out, but of course we won't know for sure".  you are kidding, they had their hands around our throats, again the game is about beating top sides and unless we clean up a dysfunctional forward line and that's my opinion by watching games we will make the eight, but then it will harder by the game in the finals.

3 hours ago, demon3165 said:

And I bet you thought we would win back to back premierships, I posted that we would not after round 9 - 10 last year, and that was based on how we played, and I will say this if we keep playing this way and don't change we won't win this year, so you can stick with stats I will back my eyes and knowledge of the game, but you are entitled to your opinion, even if you live in a fictional world...... 

I thought we were a chance, but I understand how difficult they are to win.