POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Western Bulldogs

[Clayton van Oliver 1,681]

I would also like to see Goodwin be more creative during the game, but if the mids don't run hard enough and the forwards can't pressure to a high enough standard then that's not about game plan.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

8 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I agree. We get little from Lockhart, Harmes, Tomlinson and Lever and then Hibberd starts to do far too much.

Rivers is the most logical addition in Harmes' spot.

But at some stage before the end of the year I'd look at Smith for Tomlinson and Chandler for Lockhart as well. Our backline has done a decent job as a unit for most of the year but we can't sit back and rest on them just being good.

If we find some quality at half back we can actually unleash Salem in to the midfield as well.

This Salem thing is a bit tiresome, he doesn't play in the midfield because he is not good enough. 

[drdrake 3,038]

The bulldogs just followed the blue print to beat the dees.  Push players back across half back and just wait for the turnover then attack.  Teams know we dont run hard to defend and we can't kick.

Don't worry about playing a ruck the dees mids and ruck dont communicate and you can just rove off melbournes ruck.  Gawn Preuss same same, their tap dominance isnt a concern, just rove off them

[chook fowler 18,243]

Two goals touched by the player on the mark. Gus couldn’t kick over Daniels head. That is just lazy.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Reads it ok as an intercept defender but simply isn't damaging enough with ball in hand and mostly takes the path of least risk.  His short to medium kicking game is pretty ordinary.

 

Is that Lever's job, though?  

To me, we want him to defend and to keep their talls under control so they have minimal impact.  He has done that very, very well.  

I'm not fussed about how 'damaging' he is with ball in hand.  Leave that to the others who are supposed to have that impact - Salem, Harmes, Lockhart etc.  

I'd rather him win his one on ones, or to kill a ball as third man up, than to be taking risks with ball in hand.  It isn't his job.

[jnrmac 18,975]

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

All fair questions, jnr.  I don't really have an answer to that.  I think it's clear that our mids didn't turn up today and they got belted because of it.

I think the commentators touched on it during the game, but I think once the pressure ramped up we reverted to a style of play that we have been known for - getting sucked into the contest, taking the wrong option or even trying silly handpasses and chip kicks that rarely come off.  Once the ball is turned over we don't get back hard enough, and against the Dogs who hit more targets than most, we get cut open on the rebound.

As for whose fault it is - it's on both.  The coaches didn't have something in place for the rebound footy that occurred, however, I like that he backed the mids in.  That should have given them confidence.  Instead they wilted when the pressure lifted.

A lot of people make the same point here: We watch this team very closely week in week out. You can see (usually in 10-15m) whether they are "switched on" or not.

Similarly with the opposition.

I know what simulations they run having been in the coaches meetings and box in years gone by. They do play for all sorts of contingencies.

But I never see that - well rarely - from Goodwin.

Goodwin appears to refuse to acknowledge his plan is not working or that the oppo's coach is winning. I have heard it said you will never be surprised by Goodwin pon match day and I think there is a lot of truth to it. 

Maybe he just doesn't believe in stopping the oppos best player. But others have tried and succeeded in stopping Bont and it goes a long way to beating the Dogs. It's seriously not rocket science.

 

 

 

[Demon Dynasty 15,454]

18 minutes ago, Trisul said:

Bont was the second highest rated player on the ground, had 742 metres gained (highest on the ground by 150 metres) and 2 direct goal assists (also highest on the ground).

Rediculously off the charts

Even on a big day most top liners won't gain more than about 580.

Surely this popped up as part of the half time review with a strategy/game day analyst!!!???  Anyone?....

"Shut this bloke down guys or he's headed for a record / damaging day!!"

Wowsers!

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

48 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

The Dogs are a side who have a game style that we can't handle.  They love to flick out that quick handball to a player on the outside, and they are a terrific team off half back.  Their man three - Daniel, JJ and Crozier - cut us up all day when the ball hit the deck.  Not only are they clever players, but they use the ball very well and were able to hit targets in these conditions.

At half time you could tell that there were a few signs that we weren't playing all that well, but we lifted our intensity and lifted our pressure in the second term and we took our chances.  We just had to keep that up.

And then we fell in a hole, both on the field and in the box, in the third term.  Bevo made some changes, such as English deep and Bruce into the ruck as both had been ineffectual to that point, and he clearly implored his players to look for the switch and run hard at every opportunity.  They did exactly that and too often they took the ball from one end to the other and they made us look second rate.  Goodwin didn't prepare enough for it, but then the players also didn't run hard enough either.

Our midfield was smashed today.  Trac was off, Oliver looked like he was gassed, Viney tries but today it didn't really pay off, and Gus didn't have the same influence as previous weeks.  Preuss was good in the ruck but, really, we should have had more influence out of the guts than we did.

Overall, this was a big test for the club after three wins against teams we should be beating, and we failed miserably.  And it really hurt to watch that.

People will try and pick out individuals in this game, but I don't see that as the problem.  People were pinging Fritsch for goodness sake.  The bloke aint the problem.  Our problem, against good sides, is that they cut us up on the outside and when the pressure drops they run it out without any issue and make us pay.  Our gameplan is too rigid and inflexible to change for it and, unless we put massive amounts of pressure on for pretty much the whole game, we struggle.

One positive from today was, again, the back line.  We could have had the greatest back line in the world in that third term and it wouldn't have stopped the ball the way it came in.  I thought May, Lever and Tomlinson were all excellent throughout the game and gave their tall forwards an absolute bath.  Hibberd was off and Wallis kicked 4 on him but, again, he had A+ delivery without any pressure.

Season is on the line next week against a side who have even more leg speed and run than the Dogs - the Saints.  We will need to make some adjustments and prepare ourselves as if we lose next week, then we're gone.  I won't write us off just yet as many here did after the Port game and then three games later we are in the 8.  However, roll over against the Saints and it will be very, very hard.

Very disappointed after that game but I'm not giving up on the season just yet.  While the Dogs were better, we more than had our chances to not only be further in front at different stages, but to also bridge the gap in the last term.  

Good rational analysis.

To some extent, I can live with us being beaten in the midfield. It's going to happen on occasion and we need to be able to win the game in a multitude of ways.

It's the ease with which they exited our front half that was the most painful aspect.

There was a point in the third, where I was genuinely thinking we need to stop kicking it inside 50 for the sake of our %.

Had we been able to put decent pressure on them coming out of defence, I believe we would have won the game. 

The question is - is it structure or effort?

[jnrmac 18,975]

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

All fair questions, jnr.  I don't really have an answer to that.  I think it's clear that our mids didn't turn up today and they got belted because of it.

I think the commentators touched on it during the game, but I think once the pressure ramped up we reverted to a style of play that we have been known for - getting sucked into the contest, taking the wrong option or even trying silly handpasses and chip kicks that rarely come off.  Once the ball is turned over we don't get back hard enough, and against the Dogs who hit more targets than most, we get cut open on the rebound.

As for whose fault it is - it's on both.  The coaches didn't have something in place for the rebound footy that occurred, however, I like that he backed the mids in.  That should have given them confidence.  Instead they wilted when the pressure lifted.

So here's another question. We all know how the Saints will play next week. Fast breaks, stack the backline rinse and repeat

We all have a pretty good idea of how to beat Melbourne

But what is Goodwin actually going to do to counter that? This is where i think his weakness is. He plans for a perfect performance from our players. When it doesn't come - because they don't show up or the oppo does something diffenent - nothing happens in the box.

It's very frustrating.

 

[Vagg 2,422]

Only get to see the team live once in a blue moon, and what an embarrassing disappointment!!  Just a complete rabble!!  No system, no skills, no desire.

Now home, and the bar is open...!!!

[Sunnydee 128]

Average feeling leaving the ground after feeling pretty good at half time. Just went to bleh .. 

Steven May hold your head high. This bloke is the goods. There midfield beat ours today, linked better through the middle of the ground and took there opportunities. 

[demonique 314]

Well I’m not going to chuck the baby out with the bath water . There is no bath water !!

[Binmans PA 26,102]

1 hour ago, grazman said:

Lost in the coaches box, taken to school by Bevo.

Shallow analysis too. This was lost on the ground. Our players didn't work hard enough. Clear as day. The best evidence is how easily we let them switch and transition from one end of the ground to the other.

[Monty Kaufman 44]

For all the hand wringing and finger pointing, I'm just a bit flat. We were beaten by a better team today, one that plays a lot like us. Regroup for the saints. We need to win that game... we could afford to drop two on the run home. We've just dropped one.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, jnrmac said:

So here's another question. We all know how the Saints will play next week. Fast breaks, stack the backline rinse and repeat

We all have a pretty good idea of how to beat Melbourne

But what is Goodwin actually going to do to counter that? This is where i think his weakness is. He plans for a perfect performance from our players. When it doesn't come - because they don't show up or the oppo does something diffenent - nothing happens in the box.

It's very frustrating.

 

The Saints game really worries me.  

As I said earlier in this thread, the Dogs play a game style that is almost the 'anti-thesis' of what we do.  They love it on the rebound and love the flick out that quick handball under pressure that releases them from a stoppage.  We, of course, get sucked into those stoppages because we all hunt the ball, and when the pressure is down forward of centre we get cut up on the rebound.

The Saints, to me, play an even stronger game style than the Dogs do that is full of running, especially on the outside of the contest.  If we turn up and do what we did today against the Saints, we'll lose by 7-8 goals.

Does Goody have the capacity to make the requisite changes next week?  I'm not so sure.  At the very least we will regain Gawn, but then I'm not so certain this is a personnel type thing.  I think it's more on structure and how we set up against these teams.

However, I'm also sick of thinking our what our 'response' to these types of games will be.  They happen too often and we should be thinking about how we keep up our terrific style of football, rather than feeling the way we do right now.

[binman 38,106]

5 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

 

Had we been able to put decent pressure on them coming out of defence, I believe we would have won the game. 

The question is - is it structure or effort?

Effort. Pure and simple

[ThreeOneSix 953]

I’d pay to just forgive the run. I thought we were alright today. Bulldogs were just the better side. Our midfield was pretty good, stoppage work ok, backline solid (May Lever great), but our spread wasn’t good, and our player accountability was below average. We are struggling against these sides that can spread well. It seems to really catch us out. I thought we were ok today boys should hold their head up high, we just lacked in areas and the bullies capitalised. They are a classy side. Our goal kicking probably cost us the win today as well. Kick straight we probably win that.

Edited August 22, 2020 by ThreeOneSix

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

So here's another question. We all know how the Saints will play next week. Fast breaks, stack the backline rinse and repeat

We all have a pretty good idea of how to beat Melbourne

But what is Goodwin actually going to do to counter that? This is where i think his weakness is. He plans for a perfect performance from our players. When it doesn't come - because they don't show up or the oppo does something diffenent - nothing happens in the box.

It's very frustrating.

 

This is not meant as a defence of the coach, but I'm pretty sure any plan B, C or D is going to require the players to be producing ballistic defensive effort and a willingness to spread and run.

At this level, if that doesn't come, there's really nowhere to go.

[Queanbeyan Demon 5,962]

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

1 minute ago, binman said:

Effort. Pure and simple

Yep - I tend to agree.

[DeeSpencer 23,134]

5 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

This Salem thing is a bit tiresome, he doesn't play in the midfield because he is not good enough. 

What's the evidence for that? A few games at the start of 2018?

The way Salem wins loose ball contests at half back is exactly as good midfielders do. He has fast hands, vision and a smart step. He covered the most ground last week and the 2nd most this week. So tank can't be an issue.

We have too many midfielders and not enough skilled half backs is the clearest reason he plays half back.

Shaun Higgins was one of the best midfielders in the comp since he moved to North after being a career half back or half forward flanker. Players can keep developing well in to their 20's.

It's unlikely we draft a skilled midfielder who pushes out Oliver/Viney/Gus/Petracca because they are nearly impossible to find. The best chance of adding in some skill to that group is biting the bullet and giving Salem a go. The best way to do that is to get some skilled back flankers in to the side so we can try it.

[Demon Dynasty 15,454]

6 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Is that Lever's job, though?  

To me, we want him to defend and to keep their talls under control so they have minimal impact.  He has done that very, very well.  

I'm not fussed about how 'damaging' he is with ball in hand.  Leave that to the others who are supposed to have that impact - Salem, Harmes, Lockhart etc.  

I'd rather him win his one on ones, or to kill a ball as third man up, than to be taking risks with ball in hand.  It isn't his job.

Sorry but the ability to switch and occasionally hit up a loose on the 45 isn't limited to smaller / medium blokes in the AFL Bin. 

I've even seen Maxy do it on occasions!

Opposition medium talls and intercept backs are also capable of doing this from time to time when they spot a free available on the fat side.

If his skills are limited to (bulk of time) only laying off backwards and/or kicking down the line then IMHO the big contract and the two first rounders are a bust (in the context of what was paid / is being paid vs actual match day returns).

[Deesprate 1,162]

3 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Lonely job

[Binmans PA 26,102]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

There is some merit in this, however, bad kicking is bad football.  Against good sides you need to take the simple chances and dob a few of the tough ones.  While we might have kicked a few of the tough ones, we missed some gettable shots all day and it hurt.  

It doesn't hide the fact that we were smashed around the contest, though.

We were smashed in transition IMO.

Our defence generally held up well to their break aways from stoppage. May was immense in this respect.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

We had the same number of inside 50s. But our small/mid forwards, Fritsch aside, put in shockers. I said in the Game Day thread that every week Pickett feels like he's close to dominating, but never actually does. We can't keep carrying small forwards who neither impact the game nor pressure.

Agreed. Pickett did very little early on and ended up laying 5, mostly in the second half.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Goodwin blatantly outcoached. We've had a strong defensive zone that was broken to pieces today, largely through the Dogs switching repeatedly. They've played a lot of footy at Metricon (we've only played once there before today), so maybe they knew it well, but it was clear from the start that they had a plan and it worked. 

Disagree. If our players worked hard enough, the Bulldogs can't switch to anyone and look up and have easy transition down the other side of the ground. It's simply not a coaching thing. It's a work rate thing on our mids and forwards.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Preuss was beaten by Bruce. Can we end the whole "we're good without Max" thing? We're not.

Preuss was doing exactly what Max regularly does when other teams rove to his taps or he tapped to the Bulldog players. Really not a Max v Preuss thing. Max would have given us far more around the ground, but that wouldn't have helped us. We needed gut running. We didn't get it. At the end of the day, the ruck position is a junk position. One of the truly ineffective and overrated positions in the modern game. Beveridge clearly agrees and won a premiership with that philosophy. 

[Soidee 1,496]

Bont did what he liked all day, not one coaches move to try and stop him.  Goodwin beats up on teams at their weakest and has no answers for teams stronger  than us.  Dogs wanted it more,  one step forward three steps back is the Melbourne way.  In the 8 with all the motivation and they pee their pants again.

i said it weeks ago and it still stands, THIS CLUB CANNOT BE TRUSTED!   
 

I cannot see this team this year or next or the one after making the top 4.  There are other clubs developing faster below and above us, and our window of opportunity with this list will fall away.  2020-21 was meant to be our window to push hard.  How the hell we still have members is beyond me.

its just hopeless!,