Fairly in depth commentary on the Dees on First Crack, with the usual damning footage of players just banging the ball on their boot. Oliver and Viney main culprits.

Not sure how we get out of this with this list, though the list can grow and evolve over the season - if we can get some of the next gen players on the park and keep them there.

8 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Fairly in depth commentary on the Dees on First Crack, with the usual damning footage of players just banging the ball on their boot. Oliver and Viney main culprits.

Not sure how we get out of this with this list, though the list can grow and evolve over the season - if we can get some of the next gen players on the park and keep them there.

If we assume that Oliver & Viney's handpasses hit their targets, both players only had 2 effective kicks (each) against the Cats

Oliver 2 of 14 (effective kicks)

Vibey 2 of 8 (effective kicks)

Overall

Oliver 30 disposals 14 kicks 16 handpasses ... DE 60%

Viney 15 disposals 8 kicks 7 handpasses ... DE 60%

But if some of the handpasses are missing their targets, that's just as big of an issue

30 minutes ago, Macca said:

If we assume that Oliver & Viney's handpasses hit their targets, both players only had 2 effective kicks (each) against the Cats

Oliver 2 of 14 (effective kicks)

Vibey 2 of 8 (effective kicks)

Overall

Oliver 30 disposals 14 kicks 16 handpasses ... DE 60%

Viney 15 disposals 8 kicks 7 handpasses ... DE 60%

But if some of the handpasses are missing their targets, that's just as big of an issue

Wheelo has kicking and handball efficiency stats. I can’t work out how to make a screenshot small enough to meet Demonland’s 226kb limit but Oliver is 56.6 by foot and 82.6 by hand, Viney is 48.9 by foot and 74.4 by hand. Not great..

Edit: i’ll add that Trac is 45.5 by foot, in the bottom 5 for us, 76 by hand. Our midfield is a butcher shop.

Edited April 7Apr 7 by Fromgotowoewodin

9 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Wheelo has kicking and handball efficiency stats. I can’t work out how to make a screenshot small enough to meet Demonland’s 226kb limit but Oliver is 56.6 by foot and 82.6 by hand, Viney is 48.9 by foot and 74.4 by hand. Not great..

Edit: i’ll add that Trac is 45.5 by foot, in the bottom 5 for us, 76 by hand. Our midfield is a butcher shop.

We need to turn the list over

From an overall perspective, the current list is incapable of playing fast, effective, attacking football with the accompanying footskills and handpassing skills. And our marking skills are woeful (especially up forward)

Our offense just isn't up to it and we need change ... so we need to rebuild the list

But that rebuild has already started in the 2023 off season with 2 first round picks (Windsor & Kolt) ... and then continued on last year with another 2 first rounders in Lindsay & Langford

Edited April 7Apr 7 by Macca

What comes first, a rebuild of a list or a game plan. What is the goal? Does a new coach change either direction? Who needs to be making these decisions? Can these be made without a ceo or president? Can’t sit idle but can’t make rash immature decisions either. We’ve done that before.

I wasn't ready to be ordinary again. I really hope they make the correct decisions over the next few years otherwise this ends very badly. What worries me is opening the paper and seeing that Jason Taylor has left the building.

42 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I think there are ways to play competitive football and be attacking. We've played far too defensively for years, putting no trust in our forwards to take a mark on a lead and never willing to give up anything from the backline to put something on the scoreboard. Whatever it is we're doing now is not the answer. We've traded one defensive gameplan for another and we're not even good at the one we're trying to do.

If we move the ball quickly from the backline to get more marks inside 50, then the best we could hope for is 23-25% of inside 50s being marked. Last year we were 22.4%. Our 21 season was 22.5%. The Tigers won 2 flags with lower numbers. In fact, our percentage was the 4th best of the last 10 premiers. The poster child for ball movement were the pies in 23, who marked 24.3% of inside 50s. We need to move the ball better but it’s not our biggest problem.

Our biggest problem is the other 75-80% of entries where the ball hits the ground. Our method is to create a stoppage, which opponents love as it’s easy to get numbers back and defend. It’s very different to what the tigers from 2017-2020 did, which is keep the ball alive at all costs.

The post game pressers last Friday were telling. Scott was effusive about Dangerfields forward work, particularly the things that don’t show on the stat sheet like keeping the ball alive. On Friday, Geelong were never pressured in our forward 50. Yet we were every time it went into geelongs.

But we can do it. Against Geelong last year was one of the games goody coached well in where he didn’t let Geelong have the free behind the ball, we put forward pressure on, and at one stage the game went for about 20 minutes without a stoppage. Guess what. We won. Inside 50s were pretty much even like last Friday as well. But there are probably 5 games in the last 3 years where we changed this up. The other 70 games we are just on a stupid rinse and repeat cycle creating forward stoppages leading to our typical congested forward line. The big concern I have, is I don’t think goody realises it’s a problem.

The big concern I have, is I don’t think goody realises it’s a problem.

23 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

If we move the ball quickly from the backline to get more marks inside 50, then the best we could hope for is 23-25% of inside 50s being marked. Last year we were 22.4%. Our 21 season was 22.5%. The Tigers won 2 flags with lower numbers. In fact, our percentage was the 4th best of the last 10 premiers. The poster child for ball movement were the pies in 23, who marked 24.3% of inside 50s. We need to move the ball better but it’s not our biggest problem.

Our biggest problem is the other 75-80% of entries where the ball hits the ground. Our method is to create a stoppage, which opponents love as it’s easy to get numbers back and defend. It’s very different to what the tigers from 2017-2020 did, which is keep the ball alive at all costs.

The post game pressers last Friday were telling. Scott was effusive about Dangerfields forward work, particularly the things that don’t show on the stat sheet like keeping the ball alive. On Friday, Geelong were never pressured in our forward 50. Yet we were every time it went into geelongs.

But we can do it. Against Geelong last year was one of the games goody coached well in where he didn’t let Geelong have the free behind the ball, we put forward pressure on, and at one stage the game went for about 20 minutes without a stoppage. Guess what. We won. Inside 50s were pretty much even like last Friday as well. But there are probably 5 games in the last 3 years where we changed this up. The other 70 games we are just on a stupid rinse and repeat cycle creating forward stoppages leading to our typical congested forward line. The big concern I have, is I don’t think goody realises it’s a problem.

Very good post...

That last line especially caught my eye.

Think the answer is he doesn't

2 hours ago, Watson11 said:

If we move the ball quickly from the backline to get more marks inside 50, then the best we could hope for is 23-25% of inside 50s being marked. Last year we were 22.4%. Our 21 season was 22.5%. The Tigers won 2 flags with lower numbers. In fact, our percentage was the 4th best of the last 10 premiers. The poster child for ball movement were the pies in 23, who marked 24.3% of inside 50s. We need to move the ball better but it’s not our biggest problem.

Our biggest problem is the other 75-80% of entries where the ball hits the ground. Our method is to create a stoppage, which opponents love as it’s easy to get numbers back and defend. It’s very different to what the tigers from 2017-2020 did, which is keep the ball alive at all costs.

The post game pressers last Friday were telling. Scott was effusive about Dangerfields forward work, particularly the things that don’t show on the stat sheet like keeping the ball alive. On Friday, Geelong were never pressured in our forward 50. Yet we were every time it went into geelongs.

But we can do it. Against Geelong last year was one of the games goody coached well in where he didn’t let Geelong have the free behind the ball, we put forward pressure on, and at one stage the game went for about 20 minutes without a stoppage. Guess what. We won. Inside 50s were pretty much even like last Friday as well. But there are probably 5 games in the last 3 years where we changed this up. The other 70 games we are just on a stupid rinse and repeat cycle creating forward stoppages leading to our typical congested forward line. The big concern I have, is I don’t think goody realises it’s a problem.

Good post.

We seem to get the ball in quickly - Goody refers to the i50s being respectable. They're also not with great purpose but just banged in there.

But when we allow an outnumber it looks an insane strategy

And when we have the three butchers in the midfield it looks even worse

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Good post.

We seem to get the ball in quickly - Goody refers to the i50s being respectable. They're also not with great purpose but just banged in there.

But when we allow an outnumber it looks an insane strategy

And when we have the three butchers in the midfield it looks even worse

Our inside 50 entries have actually gotten far worse.

We're 15th for inside 50s averaging 50.5 a game. This is surprisingly up from last year where we averaged only 49 inside 50s per game. These are pretty average numbers for inside 50s per game over the past few years so not a massive issue on its own.

Here's where the problems really start. We are dead last for scores, averaging 8.5 goals per game and 11 behinds. Meaning we are getting 19.5 scoring shots per game. That's as bad as richmond last year. We're 16th for tackles inside 50 averaging 7.8 a game down from 10.7 last year. But even worse we are equal last for marks inside 50 and a dismal 7.5 a game down from 11 last year. For reference Richmond were the worst in this area last year with an average of 9.5.

It's really just appalling how bad we continue to be in this area and unforgivable that we've gotten significantly worse.

11 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Wheelo has kicking and handball efficiency stats. I can’t work out how to make a screenshot small enough to meet Demonland’s 226kb limit but Oliver is 56.6 by foot and 82.6 by hand, Viney is 48.9 by foot and 74.4 by hand. Not great..

Edit: i’ll add that Trac is 45.5 by foot, in the bottom 5 for us, 76 by hand. Our midfield is a butcher shop.

And therein lies our biggest issue IMO - we have too many butchers. All teams have plenty of butchers but i'd argue our issues are compounded by most of our senior A graders (Tracc, Max, Clarry, Viney, May, Lever) all being poor by foot.

I'd also add that its not as if this issue has only just become a factor because of the new game plan - its long been an issue and in fact i'd argue it was the key reason why didn't win the flag in 2023 (way too many missed shots and turnovers)

Edited April 8Apr 8 by binman

18 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Our inside 50 entries have actually gotten far worse.

We're 15th for inside 50s averaging 50.5 a game. This is surprisingly up from last year where we averaged only 49 inside 50s per game. These are pretty average numbers for inside 50s per game over the past few years so not a massive issue on its own.

Here's where the problems really start. We are dead last for scores, averaging 8.5 goals per game and 11 behinds. Meaning we are getting 19.5 scoring shots per game. That's as bad as richmond last year. We're 16th for tackles inside 50 averaging 7.8 a game down from 10.7 last year. But even worse we are equal last for marks inside 50 and a dismal 7.5 a game down from 11 last year. For reference Richmond were the worst in this area last year with an average of 9.5.

It's really just appalling how bad we continue to be in this area and unforgivable that we've gotten significantly worse.

Jesus Christ would struggle at Full forward with those stats

1 hour ago, binman said:

And therein lies our biggest issue IMO - we have too many butchers. All teams have plenty of butchers but i'd argue our issues are compounded by most of our senior A graders (Tracc, Max, Clarry, Viney, May, Lever) all being poor by foot.

I'd also add that its not as if this issue has only just become a factor because of the new game plan - its long been an issue and in fact i'd argue it was the key reason why didn't win the flag in 2023 (way too many missed shots and goals and turnovers)

Just to deep dive on this further.

For kicking efficiency for 2024 (and years prior it does looks the same), I agree the 'issue' is indeed Oliver (55 percent) and Viney (53), to some extent Petracca (63) but not Lever and May who were the highest kick efficiency (83) for us last year and ranked in the top 40 for defenders (even adjusted for May kicking in). Their foot skills are fine and appropriate to the comp average for their position (if not above) throughout their careers but maybe their errors hurt the scoreboard so supporters notice them more.

Efficiency is one thing but where it really hurt in 2024 was disposal per turnover and disposals per clanger, where Viney and Oliver are both around 5, league worst for guys that get that mucb of the ball. (As an aside, Harley Reid is at 4 and a large part of why I think hes overated)

Where I also worry is that the players often nominated as 'good'users, Windsor (57) Kolt (47) and Kozy (57l are yes better, but they are far from good users with respect to competition averages. You'd want them to be your worst users, not your best. (Small sample size admittedly). Thankfully Langford and Lindsay look to be elite.

To give a random conparison, Adelaide last year Laird (60), Scholl(66), Crouch (61), Soligo (55), Dawson(63). Rankine (60).

Point is I think we are significantly off it and personally, with a heavy heart I'd trade those with value in Oliver, Petracca and Pickett for a total of 4 to 5 first rounders and keep Viney (have to).

Edited April 8Apr 8 by Jjrogan

18 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Keepings off will never work for us with Gawn, Oliver, Petracca and Viney. It might in the future with X, mcphee, Langford and kolt. But I think we are playing catchup with our recruiting rather than leading.

When old man Viney was at the club we only recruited players who were competitive. Look at the players we have taken outside the national draft and besides Aiden Johnson we haven't continued down that path.

Hard at it competitive footy will always win football finals regardless of what the game plan is. Game plan is over rated winning the footy isn't

Fullerton, Schache, Billings among other trade ins who don't fit this mould. Not competitive and hard at opponent and ball. Johnson and Henderson are, but skills are only just there. I would still prefer the latter pair though who give it a red hot go.

3 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Our inside 50 entries have actually gotten far worse.

We're 15th for inside 50s averaging 50.5 a game. This is surprisingly up from last year where we averaged only 49 inside 50s per game. These are pretty average numbers for inside 50s per game over the past few years so not a massive issue on its own.

Here's where the problems really start. We are dead last for scores, averaging 8.5 goals per game and 11 behinds. Meaning we are getting 19.5 scoring shots per game. That's as bad as richmond last year. We're 16th for tackles inside 50 averaging 7.8 a game down from 10.7 last year. But even worse we are equal last for marks inside 50 and a dismal 7.5 a game down from 11 last year. For reference Richmond were the worst in this area last year with an average of 9.5.

It's really just appalling how bad we continue to be in this area and unforgivable that we've gotten significantly worse.

A couple of yers ago were we not leading in inside 50s, but just the least efficient in conversion??

It is just so sad to watch our beloved team looking so totally incompetent and dispirited all over the ground. Hard to watch or enthuse over. I despair that I will ever get excited by a Demons game again.

31 minutes ago, monoccular said:

A couple of yers ago were we not leading in inside 50s, but just the least efficient in conversion??

It is just so sad to watch our beloved team looking so totally incompetent and dispirited all over the ground. Hard to watch or enthuse over. I despair that I will ever get excited by a Demons game again.

Not sure how long you've been watching our beloved lot Mr One Eye but I can assure you these are NOT the darkest of days. We could be heading back there if we aren't clever but I'm still hoping some sanity might prevail. Not thinking this year is going to be that flash but hopefully set us up for a better 26.

18 minutes ago, monoccular said:

A couple of yers ago were we not leading in inside 50s, but just the least efficient in conversion??

It is just so sad to watch our beloved team looking so totally incompetent and dispirited all over the ground. Hard to watch or enthuse over. I despair that I will ever get excited by a Demons game again.

2021 we were second for inside 50s averaging 56.3 and second for marks inside 50 with 12.7. We were also 1st for shots on goal averaging 28.4 but fourth for goals kicked at 12.9. So still some conversion issues there but generally much better in those areas.

2022 we were third for inside 50s but with a higher average of 56.5 but marks inside 50 dropped a bit down to 11.3. Importantly marks inside 50 shot way up this year with Geelong ranked 1st with a whopping average of 15. We were ranked 8th in this area. We also dropped off on shots on goal, ranked 6th with 26.6 and 6th again for goals kicked averaging 12.5. The highest scoring teams this year were Richmond, Geelong and Brisbane who all averaged over 14 goals a game. I think this year was really the canary in the coal mine that the game was moving in a different direction from our contest/defence forward half style.

2023 we were first for inside 50s with an average of 58.4. 6th for marks inside 50 with 12.8, 4th for shots on goal with 26.7 but 6th for goals again with 12.8. I believe this is the year you were talking about where we successfully locked it into our forward half but couldn't really improve our scoring off the back of it.

2024 we fall off a cliff for inside 50s, ranked 15th with an average of only 49. 14th for marks inside 50 with an average of 11, 15th for shots on goal with 22.9 and 14th for goals with an average of 11.3.

And as I pointed out in my previous post we're significantly worse in these areas this year.

It's interesting to me that we weren't much worse in 22 or 23 in regards to our forward entries or scoring capability but the competition drastically improved in those areas and went past us.

Some might say that it's a fools errand for us to try and emulate football styles our list wasn't built for but it's clear that going back to the well that won us a flag in 2021 wasn't going to get it done again. We had to change and we waited far too long to actually pull the trigger. Now we're trying to change but so far Goodwin has not shown that he can transform this side into one that can play the modern game.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by KozzyCan

10 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

It's interesting to me that we weren't much worse in 22 or 23 in regards to our forward entries or scoring capability but the competition drastically improved in those areas and went past us.

This ^^^^^^^^

Everyone else worked us out , evolved , and ran past us.

We're still trying to order off the 23 menu ( which was only marginally different from 21's anyway )

2 hours ago, Jjrogan said:

Just to deep dive on this further.

For kicking efficiency for 2024 (and years prior it does looks the same), I agree the 'issue' is indeed Oliver (55 percent) and Viney (53), to some extent Petracca (63) but not Lever and May who were the highest kick efficiency (83) for us last year and ranked in the top 40 for defenders (even adjusted for May kicking in). Their foot skills are fine and appropriate to the comp average for their position (if not above) throughout their careers but maybe their errors hurt the scoreboard so supporters notice them more.

Efficiency is one thing but where it really hurt in 2024 was disposal per turnover and disposals per clanger, where Viney and Oliver are both around 5, league worst for guys that get that mucb of the ball. (As an aside, Harley Reid is at 4 and a large part of why I think hes overated)

Where I also worry is that the players often nominated as 'good'users, Windsor (57) Kolt (47) and Kozy (57l are yes better, but they are far from good users with respect to competition averages. You'd want them to be your worst users, not your best. (Small sample size admittedly). Thankfully Langford and Lindsay look to be elite.

To give a random conparison, Adelaide last year Laird (60), Scholl(66), Crouch (61), Soligo (55), Dawson(63). Rankine (60).

Point is I think we are significantly off it and personally, with a heavy heart I'd trade those with value in Oliver, Petracca and Pickett for a total of 4 to 5 first rounders and keep Viney (have to).

May and Lever get a real leg up from their static kicks, all those 20m chip kicks exaggerate their numbers

Buckley on Melbourne's tactics - quite damning

6 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Now we're trying to change but so far Goodwin has not shown that he can transform this side into one that can play the modern game.

No, because he's working with the same players with the same strengths and weaknesses. The list needs to be built in terms of game style, a coach can only work with what he has at his disposal.

On the other hand, you can remodel the list on the run by bringing players in: the drafting over the last 2 years clearly shows (to me at least) that the club is well aware of the issues and well aware of what's needed. The natural evolution of these younger players will help turn the ship around, though in an ideal world you'd want to bring in experienced players as well - which once again, we've started to do with for example Billings (elite kick, regardless of his various shortcomings), and Sharp (outside run). A Butters would be the icing on the cake (cough), though not sure how realistic that is, perhaps there might be others looking to move.

I think also that one of the issues here is the loss of leadership and through that, a loss of cohesion and connection, both on-field and off. I've heard on multiple occasions that Gus wasn't so much a leader per se, but the glue that helped hold everything together. Similar for ANB. The absence of Lever isn't helping. You can see players like Chandler trying to step up, with some success, but it will take time.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by bing181

50 minutes ago, bing181 said:

No, because he's working with the same players with the same strengths and weaknesses. The list needs to be built in terms of game style, a coach can only work with what he has at his disposal.

On the other hand, you can remodel the list on the run by bringing players in: the drafting over the last 2 years clearly shows (to me at least) that the club is well aware of the issues and well aware of what's needed. The natural evolution of these younger players will help turn the ship around, though in an ideal world you'd want to bring in experienced players as well - which once again, we've started to do with for example Billings (elite kick, regardless of his various shortcomings), and Sharp (outside run). A Butters would be the icing on the cake (cough), though not sure how realistic that is, perhaps there might be others looking to move.

I simply don't agree that this side can't play a different style that is competitive with the modern game. This labourious chip kick control game where we slowly move the ball around until we finally bomb it to the goal square ain't it though.

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

I simply don't agree that this side can't play a different style that is competitive with the modern game.

If being 0-4 isn't proof that "this side can't play a different style that is competitive with the modern game", then I don't know what is.

There's an overriding assumption in this thread that "copying" the modern template will be the answer to the woes we are currently experiencing as a team.

With this assumption comes the rationalisation of draft picks potential / alignment to that assumption.

The first order question is whether we should copy (i don't think so), or whether we should pick the gameplan that will in 2-3 years be the new dominant style. I believe it was Sam Mitchell that noted that his challenge when coming to the Hawks was not to copy the then current dominant style, contested defence zone that Melbourne had mastered, but to define what would be copied next.

I think we can all agree he's been sucessful in this. My question, does Goody have that sort of innovation in his kit bag?