1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

I love this level of analysis.

For me I am curious about about coaching decisions (or non decisions).

Is there inflexibility and a steadfast refusal to change certain tactics - ie: cover the extra number? Is it simply - our system will hopefully beat your system? or in marking contests clearly spoiling the ball very long vs at the feet where our smalls set up 

or, say with Petracca operating more forward (thus removed from clearance situations) (doubly showing there is flexibility to choose to do something different) why aren’t these alterations done during the game?

Is it Goodwin and co not seeing it as it occurring in game? Or is it optimistically the myth of, seeing their hand and keeping your powder dry? 

 

We shouldnt be allowing a spare man in their fwd 50. That is an error right there. Not sure we do that usually.

In our fwd 50 no problem because our spare out the back acts as a goalkeeper.

25 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't like Scott but he has reason to be chuffed. He has re-engineered his side to beat us. Kudos.

But with 8m to go Kozzie kicks for goal and hits the post. We are 5pts down. Dont get too excited.

Plus he has shown his hand quite early and we know finals aren't won in July

I have always had a grudging respect for Scott, even more so tgis season as as you say he has retooled his whole approach to beat us. Deserves kudos for that as it is no small thing

4 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Chris Scott spoke about our predictability in his post match conference.

He spoke about how we regularly have two 200cm players going up in packs and how they stopped it by making sure the crumbs didn’t fall gently to the front where Oliver and Petracca position themselves.

I would like to see us trying a few things before finals, such as occasionally attacking with short kicks through the heart of the opposition zone. While we might give away the odd turnover goal, it would make us less predictable. 

oh how i cannot stand that peanut. But Goody needs to hear it - maybe the other coaches have been telling him and doesnt want to hear it... who knows, but its frustrating as hell.

2 hours ago, von said:

Very good chance we showed them nothing deliberately 

You see i had this belief too once. But, if you don't use it in H&A matches, how are are you expect to make it fit for purpose in the finals, where it has to be instinctive. We play a defensive game with ball in hand. Its designed that way to minimize scores from turnover. But it requires slow ball movement and basically zero risk taking. Its easy to defend against if we are moving it from the backline. 

At the end of the day I dont think you can play one brand in H&A and another in Finals. The only things that you can change are small things like tags and match-ups. 

No too disheartened by that loss... would always prefer to beat the cats..... with a big stick if possible.

Far from our best collectively with a few exceptions. Also playing on that skinny dog of a ground takes away our best attacking weapons on our wings. I console myself with the belief that the ground is a really home ground advantage for the Cats and a real disadvantage when playing on the more open grounds in finals.

Bad things.

Defence, usually our strength was a bit disjointed with May having the fumbles and kicking woes. a couple of the others were not up to their usual standards... hello Bowey. 

The biggest problem we had was the connection into the forward 50. Badly directed kicks that were a result of bad skills. 

Overall a very disappointing result that should get a proper reaction from the playing group if our culture is all that it is cracked up to be.

I will be looking for that next week.

11 minutes ago, CYB said:

You see i had this belief too once. But, if you don't use it in H&A matches, how are are you expect to make it fit for purpose in the finals, where it has to be instinctive. We play a defensive game with ball in hand. Its designed that way to minimize scores from turnover. But it requires slow ball movement and basically zero risk taking. Its easy to defend against if we are moving it from the backline. 

At the end of the day I dont think you can play one brand in H&A and another in Finals. The only things that you can change are small things like tags and match-ups. 

I don’t think we are a team that make drastic moves ever. I meant those smaller details like a semi tag on bont by Clarry in the grand final when he got going. We could have affected their set up at contest potentially last night but didn’t seem to bother. We have some options around contest, stoppages etc that we choose to use or not at times.

56 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

@von, on a completely unrelated note. Whenever I see your name, I can’t help but think of the first album Von by Sigur Ros and this ripping song.

 

I always liked takk the most. They are fantastic

2 hours ago, Scoop Junior said:

This x10.

I was at the game too and Geelong continually set up at around-the-ground stoppages (particularly throw-ins and ball ups near the boundary) with at least one, sometimes two, players on the defensive side of the stoppage. The one that was constantly there and left alone was in an almost North-West position from the ruckmen at a boundary throw in. Often it was Duncan.

Our approach the whole night was to leave this player alone. We either had the same numbers at the stoppage but held defined positions (e.g. we'd have a player in a North position from the ruckmen (defensive side of the Geelong spare but often unable to affect the play)) or we'd have a spare behind the ball.

Time and again they would win the footy and flip it out to the spare, who would then have enough time to either handball to a player running past or deliver somewhat un-pressured inside 50. The benefit of having our spare back is lost if pressure isn't applied to the ball carrier - the spare is there for the hack pressured kick but we weren't able to apply enough heat / Geelong were too clean and crisp in close to cause hack kicks forward.

Now I have no problem with retaining our structure and method as it has been working and you can't just chop and change all the time. But in this game, with Geelong outhunting us and bringing more heat and intensity, causing us to fumble or turn over the ball when we did get first possession, I thought we could've tinkered a bit at stoppages to try and nullify this.

A great example came in the third quarter. Stoppage at Geelong's half forward line. They had the extra at the stoppage, we had Lever spare down back. They won it, flipped it out to the spare, we couldn't close him down quickly enough, the spare then fed it inside to Smith who ran to 50m and goaled. Lever as the spare was then wasted as he could only watch the ball sail over his head.

Clever by Geelong to use the extra number to create flowing entries and ensure as few hack kicks as possible to our spare. Without applying enough heat when Geelong won the ball, it allowed them to get the stoppage game on their terms and was a big factor in the result.

We also lacked another big target forward of the ball but what really cost us were just some ridiculous decisions going inside 50. There were a number of times we had players out in space but just kicked it straight down the throat of a Geelong defender. These were un-pressured entries so it was incredibly frustrating to waste so many opportunities going inside 50.

Geelong were clearly the better side on the night. They were more intense with their hunt of the man with the ball and deserved to win the game. It reminded me of the Collingwood game where we were in the game in the last quarter but never really looked in control or likely to win.

Agree with much of this mate, but I guess it comes down to philosophy and Goodwin has shown his hand in this regard.

We'd much rather stick to our system and manufacture a spare behind the ball with -1 at stoppage and back our contested mids in. Given we've got two A+ers and a B+/A in Viney, it's up to them to hold up their end of the bargain.

If we change the structure for them, then we don't get it looking like a Melbourne game and probably have to make sacrifices elsewhere on the ground as a flow on effect.

We always play -1 at stoppage, weirdly we played -2 at stoppage at key points against Freo and Sydney. -1 is sustainable, but -2 isn't IMV.

Also, our half forwards didn't get involved enough around stoppage to pressure the Geelong spare off the back.

I generally think it's frustrating and looks terrible when we're not winning stoppage, but usually it doesn't get shown up as often because we don't lose clearance so convincingly as we did last night.

Edited July 8, 20222 yr by A F

3 hours ago, von said:

Very good chance we showed them nothing deliberately 

And they probably showed more than they would have wanted to. 

Not sure if this has been mentioned but Geelong have received a lot of valuable intel from Shannon Byrnes. He was with us for eight years and if you have watched Sound The Alarm 2021 you would notice that Goody shared all the intel from the coaches box via Shannon to the players.

The reality is we have had much more injuries this year....

 

 

Tmac

Salem

May (including suspension)

Tracca has not been fully fit

Petty

Langdon

We are still hungry for success but its hard to maintain that passion for so long.

some tough games coming up but the truth is if we are final four.....we are still capable of beating anyone on any day.

so if we are injury free and get some luck and fitness we are still more than capable of back to back flags.

A few need to pull their finger out and we know who they are. I sure they will come the business end.

3 hours ago, von said:

Very good chance we showed them nothing deliberately 

Lol. This is up there with the people who use loading as an excuse for every loss and every game that we're not at our best. 

Just accept that the Cats will be in the mix again this year and that were not a sure thing to go back to back. The end

 

Edited July 8, 20222 yr by DemonWA
Grammar

I didn't see any of the pressers but from what I'm reading in here Scott sure sounded pretty outspoken? Saying that we usually have two talls at contests so they did X and then saying that's as good as we have? 

If I didn't know any better I'd say these are the kinds of comments that don't get forgotten easily..

That's what they said when we were minor Premiers last year

12 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

Lol. This is up there with the people who use loading as an excuse for every loss and every game that we're not at our best. 

Just accept that the Cats will be in the mix again this year and that were not a sure thing to go back to back. The end

 

I accept all that. The cats are good. They are the most impressive club of the last decade and a half.

I don’t think we gave anything away 

The Cats showed all of their cards last night, we showed them nothing.....

4 hours ago, von said:

Very good chance we showed them nothing deliberately 

And at the same time potentially costing ourselves a top 2 spot and thus the most efficient route to the Gf?

If it was round 23 and we had our exact finals spot confirmed then sure, show them nothing  tactically, but it was essentially an 8 point game last night. I would’ve thought we were playing for sheep stations and all chips were in from a tactical point of view.

 

6 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

And at the same time potentially costing ourselves a top 2 spot and thus the most efficient route to the Gf?

If it was round 23 and we had our exact finals spot confirmed then sure, show them nothing  tactically, but it was essentially an 8 point game last night. I would’ve thought we were playing for sheep stations and all chips were in from a tactical point of view.

 

Do you think that was the case watching the game?

9 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

ut it was essentially an 8 point game last night

I wonder if Goodwin and Co felt it had the same meaning?

46 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

Lol. This is up there with the people who use loading as an excuse for every loss and every game that we're not at our best.

 

You continue to push this narrative

Put up or shut up.

Show some evidence of a single poster using loading as an excuse for every loss.

And please don't bother using posters  who have said it is factor in our losses, or even posters like myself who belive it is the key factor (but not the only one).

And please don't conflate a reason to help examine performance with making an exuse when choosing your evidence.

 

 

Edited July 8, 20222 yr by binman

4 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

The reason I didn’t address it because it’s been addressed so well by others on these forums in the past, but to sum it up for you, our game plan relies enormously on our ability to cover the ground both defensively to create turnovers and then going forward to create scores. No other teams relies on it as much as we do. And if we are fatigued we can’t execute our game plan and become very beatable by good teams (and not so good teams.). Fatigue also creates poor decision making, poor skill execution, lack of power to break tackles, and I could go on and on. I don’t accept it’s an effort issue.  Or complacency. Or tactical.

Last year is absolutely a valid comparison because the science behind our fitness preparation hasn’t changed.  There are lots of other variables of course but the facts are in order to give ourselves the best chance to succeed in September, we have to risk our performance in June and July. If we play it too safe, teams that were willing to risk more now will steam roll us come finals.

Loading is 100% necessary but it’s also not a silver bullet. My “blind hope” as you put it comes because I trust our coaches aren’t taking anything for granted.   They now have the track record of taking care of the big picture (loading) while also identifying all the 1% issues that need addressing.  Always, (win, lose or draw), looking at ways to improve. Always respecting the competition and opposition.  They have been the constant theme of Godwin’s press conferences. My blind and naive hope is because our football department has earned my trust. 

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate, though you really haven't said anything of substance. You're admitting your perception of where we are at is informed by

-Loading (speculation, unconfirmed)

-Trust in the FD 

If that's all it takes to convince yourself that we'll be ok then I'm glad for you. 

I think attributing losses to loading is both extremely disrespectful to the opposition (as if to say if we were fully fit, winning is a fait accompli) and extremely complacent. Especially in the face of clear statistical indicators showing where we're getting well beaten and comments from Scott post game explaining how he dismantled our gameplan. It's a lazy excuse that papers over any meaningful analysis or explanation, because fitness is obviously a common element that underpins the entire sport. 

As for trust in the FD - I have some but not enough to blindly ignore what my eyes and ears are telling me. Just as Goodwin took us to a flag he also landed us in 17th. To assume he will always get it right is pretty ridiculous. Huge recency bias too. 

I'm not bothered by the loss honestly - it's the manner of the losses that concern me and they bear very little resemblance to last year regardless of what you say. 

As I said, no reason we can't turn it around and I'll be thrilled if it happens - but in a post game thread full of good analysis and people searching for answers, chalking it up to loading and last year's profile is lazy & simplistic. 

This isn't negative at all, it's observational. Some very sensitive folks on here. 

38 minutes ago, binman said:

You continue to push this narrative

Put up or shut up.

Show some evidence of a single poster using loading as an excuse for every loss.

And please don't bother using posters  who have said it is factor in our losses, or even posters like myself who belive it is the key factor (but not the only one).

And please don't conflate a reason to help examine performance with making an exuse when choosing your evidence.

 

 

I don't see a substantial difference between using it as a sole excuse and using it as the predominant excuse. It's semantics. 

Try not to get so triggered. 

Cats dominated Inside 50s, clearances and centre clearance and stoppages. The last three area I guess you could attribute to Gawn and Jackson probably probably being underdone and Geelong's willingness to go harder longer.

As good as BBB was in the first half the lack of marks in our forward 50 must be a worry to the coaches. Whether that is game style or blokes out of form it is too big an ask just to score goals from general play. Gawn and Jackson had one mark between them.

Again disappointed with the games of Bedford and Bowey and Jordon had a Barry Crocker.

 

 

.

2 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

I don't see a substantial difference between using it as a sole excuse and using it as the predominant excuse. It's semantics. 

Try not to get so triggered. 

Fair dinkum, that is Donald Trump level projection right there.

3 minutes ago, binman said:

Fair dinkum, that is Donald Trump level projection right there.

Looking forward to your analysis on the podcast Binman

It appears that we were happy to let things go tactically.

I'm not sure that was a wise thing to do