POSTGAME: Rd 10 vs Adelaide

[Little Richard 6,216]

14 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Michael Gleeson in The Age wrote this today. I hope we haven’t flatlined. Next week a character defining day. 

“Between the arcs Melbourne were dominant in the first six weeks, top four in a range of statistics in this critical real estate on the ground: third for uncontested marks, second for contested possessions, fifth for tackles. In the last month they have fallen away between the arcs to be bottom four in the important categories”.

However not bottom four in the most important category - wins. 

[Winners at last 5,158]

The match showed how irreplacable Salem is.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 hour ago, bingers said:

The match showed how irreplacable Salem is.

He’s been our most important player this year.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Clint Bizkit

[Grimes Times 1,278]

First time this year our ave speed in attack has been greater than our ave speed if defence as per the AFL app.

We just didn't work hard enough defensively compared to other weeks

[sue 9,018]

58 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

He’s been our most important player this year.

Any news of how sore he is?

[Young Blood 2,280]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

He’s been our most important player this year.

On par with Langdon IMO absolutely.

The decision making and disposal in defensive 50 really showed. Lever almost seemed to be looking for him with that handball so many times and ended up going with a lesser option.

[DeeZone 8,993]

Usually after a loss I always go to the Stats and look at our lowest ranked 6-8 players, this is the first time I have bothered this year but we had 8 of the 15 lowest ranked players and that says it all. Our best 14 couldn’t drag us over the line because on the day our bottom eight acted as anchors.

We need to be a bit ruthless next week maybe Lockhart, Sparrow and hopefully Christian Salem come in.

Go Dee’s...!!!!!

[Go the Biff 3,360]

On 5/23/2021 at 12:25 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

I found myself nearly putting my fist through the wall over this..

 

I've got no problem with a forward taking a shot from the edge of the square as opposed to handing off to a team mate on a tighter angle. I don't see that as selfish. The choice to dribble kick is my beef. A simple drop punt and that's a goal. There's a bit of over analysis of this play. I think it's as simple as Fritsch not seeing Scholl charging in.

That said, Fritsch was ordinary. His failure to lead and present as a target was lamentable. As was Weideman's, as was McDonald's, as was Jackson's. I think this is a structural, system issue as much as anything. It was glaringly obvious against Carlton that our forward structure is inefficient and it's been masked by the fact that we've been winning.

[John Crow Batty 8,786]

7 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

I've got no problem with a forward taking a shot from the edge of the square as opposed to handing off to a team mate on a tighter angle. I don't see that as selfish. The choice to dribble kick is my beef. A simple drop punt and that's a goal. There's a bit of over analysis of this play. I think it's as simple as Fritsch not seeing Scholl charging in.

That said, Fritsch was ordinary. His failure to lead and present as a target was lamentable. As was Weideman's, as was McDonald's, as was Jackson's. I think this is a structural, system issue as much as anything. It was glaringly obvious against Carlton that our forward structure is inefficient and it's been masked by the fact that we've been winning.

Agree, it was just poor execution by Fritsch. Under no immediate pressure of being tackled and in best position to score. Just too laconic and worst kick option taken. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by John Crow Batty

[Nairobi_Demon 335]

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

You might be right, I just assumed that it was about possessions so don't take it as gospel.

Hi LN, re-watched the last quarter. He was definitely on the field. Gee it was frustrating, so many fumbles, slip ups, poor decisions.  They were rattled. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,384]

Our best wins this year against Richmond and Geelong have come about when we've had T Mac, Fritta and a resting ruck as our talls. 

Perhaps drop Weid and don't replace him with a tall.

 

[Dr.D 1,771]

Bad wins: Fremantle, Hawthorn, Carlton. Kangaroos, Stkilda.

Ok wins:  GWS

Good wins: Richmond, Geelong, Sydney.

Bad losses: Adelaide.

We need to start understanding momentum and putting teams away earlier before we give them a sniff.  Literally every team we've played has had a chance to beat us. Even when we beat hawks by 50 points they came hard at us. 

[Gawndy the Great 9,009]

6 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

Bad wins: Fremantle, Hawthorn, Carlton. Kangaroos, Stkilda.

Ok wins:  GWS

Good wins: Richmond, Geelong, Sydney.

Bad losses: Adelaide.

We need to start understanding momentum and putting teams away earlier before we give them a sniff.  Literally every team we've played has had a chance to beat us. Even when we beat hawks by 50 points they came hard at us. 

Not in any of those games has a team not shown up. We have been hunted solid for 9 weeks. 

I agree that we haven't started a game well in any of those games and say a 7-8 goal first quarter hiding might do just that. But it seems like we are prepared to let the teams take the ascendancy and we then respond accordingly. I cant help but think that this is by design - particularly from a seasonal fitness and injury POV.

I'd really like us to bust out of the gates this week and put some scoreboard pressure on the Doggies early. 

[Nairobi_Demon 335]

10 hours ago, bingers said:

I feel sorry for Clayton ... could anyone have done more to get the team over the line?

Did you see the post game interview, he was unhappy. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Nairobi_Demon

[Nairobi_Demon 335]

Does this seem very high to others?  

 

And any idea where to find this stat for previous games?  I found turnovers, which doesn’t seem that different to previous matches, but not “scores from turnovers”. 

[layzie 32,939]

We really needed Salem. Just thought I'd say that in case no one else did.

[Bay Riffin 1,454]

8 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Usually after a loss I always go to the Stats and look at our lowest ranked 6-8 players, this is the first time I have bothered this year but we had 8 of the 15 lowest ranked players and that says it all. Our best 14 couldn’t drag us over the line because on the day our bottom eight acted as anchors.

We need to be a bit ruthless next week maybe Lockhart, Sparrow and hopefully Christian Salem come in.

Go Dee’s...!!!!!

so out of 2 teams we had half the bottom 15 players. thats hardly a damning stat. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,094]

7 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Our best wins this year against Richmond and Geelong have come about when we've had T Mac, Fritta and a resting ruck as our talls. 

Perhaps drop Weid and don't replace him with a tall.

 

I agree with this in general but imv this week is not the week to do that as the Doggy's biggest weakness is their last line of defence.  They just don't have the talls to handle some tall options and Marvel is also a shorter field which means there's more opportunity to get the ball in deeper on more occasions vs grounds like the G.

Gut feel would be to try and expose their major weakness and go three talls this week.  Revert to the former set up from then on.

[Pates 9,625]

14 hours ago, Dr.D said:

Bad wins: Fremantle, Hawthorn, Carlton. Kangaroos, Stkilda.

Ok wins:  GWS

Good wins: Richmond, Geelong, Sydney.

Bad losses: Adelaide.

We need to start understanding momentum and putting teams away earlier before we give them a sniff.  Literally every team we've played has had a chance to beat us. Even when we beat hawks by 50 points they came hard at us. 

I’d put the Saints in “ok wins” only because the score line totally flattered them. Should’ve been 50+ points. 

But I completely agree regarding momentum. We had it with 6min to go in the first quarter when we got out to a 3 goal lead, and 6min to go in the last quarter when we had just under the 3 goal lead that got pegged back. Both times we let them score quick cheap goals and let them back in. 

Credit to Adelaide for staying in it and not giving up but we could’ve (should’ve) been able to put them to the sword after Clarry’s goal. 

[Forest Demon 4,681]

It felt like they were able to aggressively move the ball through the middle, but I don’t know if they are the first team to really go for it against us, or whether our team defence lowered its colours. I expect to see a lot more of it from opposition sides against us either way.

[binman 42,010]

19 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

First time this year our ave speed in attack has been greater than our ave speed if defence as per the AFL app.

We just didn't work hard enough defensively compared to other weeks

Exactly. Which is why they were able to transition so much more easily than other opponents - particularly though the corridor 

Add pressure levels that were not up to the required level until part way through the last quarter and you get clean entries. And the highest score kicked in against us this season.

Add some accurate kicking from them, some poor defensive efforts (why was none in Walker's leading lanes x 2), some costly fumbles (eg tracc on the wing in the last) and some dubious decision that cost goals (non deliberate, deliberate against us x 2, soft in the back against lever, rubbish 50 and the non htb against keays).

Ans most of all add a young team who played with spirit and fire and took risks. 

Put it all together and you get a one point loss. Not to mention a cracking game. At least for neutrals.

When it is all said and done nothing to die in a ditch over.

We should have played tempo one we got the 16 point lead. And the quick goal from the centre to walker was poor defensively.

Of course you want the 4 points, but I do wonder if squeezing home in that game might have allowed some players to think the pressure and defensive running was OK.

A loss takes that off the table and none one needs to tell them if the crows can beat them by applying more pressure (which accross the game they did - i reckon we only ever matched them at best  and then only for 15 mins in rhe last) the dogs will destroy them.

[binman 42,010]

10 hours ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

Does this seem very high to others?  

 

And any idea where to find this stat for previous games?  I found turnovers, which doesn’t seem that different to previous matches, but not “scores from turnovers”. 

That is super high.

Our average opposition score was something like 61 points prior to this game.

And we conceded 76 points from turnovers alone.

I'm not sure how they define a turnover (frustration #6543 with how the game us covered)  but I'm assuming it is any time where we have clear possession and they win it back. So not just clangers. There must be heaps of turnovers in any given game.

No doubt speaks to how fierce at the contest they were, their ability to transition the ball and getting clean entries. The first speaks to our pressure the latter two things our average defensive running and spread.

 

[jnrmac 19,905]

17 minutes ago, binman said:

That is super high.

Our average opposition score was something like 61 points prior to this game.

And we conceded 76 points from turnovers alone.

I'm not sure how they define a turnover (frustration #6543 with how the game us covered)  but I'm assuming it is any time where we have clear possession and they win it back. So not just clangers. There must be heaps of turnovers in any given game.

No doubt speaks to how fierce at the contest they were, their ability to transition the ball and getting clean entries. The first speaks to our pressure the latter two things our average defensive running and spread.

 

Thats it

I believe in Champion data stats there are only 3 ways to score, from a stoppage/clearance, from a turnover or a kick in.

[binman 42,010]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Thats it

I believe in Champion data stats there are only 3 ways to score, from a stoppage/clearance, from a turnover or a kick in.

Ta.

In that sense those three stats are better as indicators of things are teams are doing well, or symptoms of things they are doing poorly.

So the crow's high score from turnover is an indicator their pressure was good and symptom of our not being as good and our poor defensive running (an other things no doubt too eg good skills).

I reckon it might also point to a backline that was a bit out of kilter. They didn't replace Salem with a like for like (ie a distributor replaced by a lockdown small defender) and they played Petty in a different role (ie up the ground as opposed to the goal keeper role).

So when they won the ball back from us, our zones and defensive structures were not as well organized as they usually are.

Edited May 25, 2021 by binman

[Grimes Times 1,278]

12 hours ago, Nairobi_Demon said:

Does this seem very high to others?  

 

And any idea where to find this stat for previous games?  I found turnovers, which doesn’t seem that different to previous matches, but not “scores from turnovers”. 

I believe it was the highest score from turnovers from any team so far this year.