25 minutes ago, rpfc said:

So this is the meat of the issue; we are not getting deep central entries. Our misses are as much a ‘red herring’ as loading is. We don’t get good looks so of course our accuracy is low. 

We need to address why we don’t get good entries. 77 expected score from 73 Inside 50s is not good.

It's simple, we are still trying to play 21 football, we are unable to change angles moving into the forward line it's still kick down the line stuff, BBB was recruited as a leading forward and we expect him to be a pack mark player it's just dumb stuff, all forwards flying for the same mark, no system at all even Goody always say oh we have to have better connection with the forward line but still do the same stuff, as I have said fix the forward line entries and things will turn around.

17 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

It's simple, we are still trying to play 21 football, we are unable to change angles moving into the forward line it's still kick down the line stuff, BBB was recruited as a leading forward and we expect him to be a pack mark player it's just dumb stuff, all forwards flying for the same mark, no system at all even Goody always say oh we have to have better connection with the forward line but still do the same stuff, as I have said fix the forward line entries and things will turn around.

Unfortunately the "system" IS to kick deeper to forward packs where the plan is to have no intention to mark but to simply bring the ball to ground to create chaos ideally to find an avenue to score through smalls or create enough pressure for opposition mistakes/turnovers. The third desired outcome is to get a stoppage and set up to lock it in.

The issue with this system is that it hasn't worked well all season. Where we were scoring heavily in the first part of the season was off opposition turnovers, moving the ball quickly to a less congested forward line. Since that aspect of our game has fallen off we have ended up with plan b to ignore lateral moves to find space inside forward 50 and simply bomb it in to forwards to spoil.

GWS were able to find different angles even in wet weather which is so frustrating to watch. When we have a mark or win the ball on a wing or around our HF I would love us to lower the eyes more, for out mids to get more involved as options moving into forward 50. Just some sort of different looks to make the opposition have to change things. Instead they know our 'by the percentages' method that they can exploit by freeing up their own backs to set up in lines to move the ball quickly and easily out of their back 50 to rebound.

We just put so much unnecessary pressure on this back-line and greater team with how we set up in forward half. 

55 minutes ago, rpfc said:

So this is the meat of the issue; we are not getting deep central entries. Our misses are as much a ‘red herring’ as loading is. We don’t get good looks so of course our accuracy is low. 

We need to address why we don’t get good entries. 77 expected score from 73 Inside 50s is not good.

A lot of folk throwing around blindly ..this reason or that ...imho....but its as simple as we are not getting the ball into the right position ( at that encompasses an area...not just one spot ;) )

Footy isnt nearly as complicated as some imagine. Executing it...well, that's another thing but you need to understand what you really want to achieve first.

Forward play revolves around two...and only two very simple ideas. 1) Having the Ball..  oh... I know...it's breathtaking in its breavity..And it is.. You have to have it, control it.and get it to where you want it.....which brings me to 2) Position.  Ideally an arc  45 deg one goal post around to the other (45deg)...  no further than 40m  out. Get it there.. You goal...Well...You bloody better......  That is the HIGH % area to be in

Food for thought...how often do WE get it there..???

And that explains our problem.

How the ladder would look if the losing team with more scoring shots actually won in this years games so far. For example we lost to Freo and GWS with more scoring shots but beat Richmond with less:

Brisbane  12-3

Port 12-3

Collingwood 11-4

Melbourne 10-5

Adelaide 10-5

Sydney 9-6

W Bulldogs 9-6

St Kilda 8-7

----------------

Essendon 8-7

Carlton 7-7-1

Geelong 7-8

Fremantle 7-8

Richmond 6-8-1

GC 5-10

GWS 4-11

Hawthorn 4-11

North 2-14

West Coast 1-15

Clubs highlighted in bold would have big swings in fortune.

41 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Unfortunately the "system" IS to kick deeper to forward packs where the plan is to have no intention to mark but to simply bring the ball to ground to create chaos ideally to find an avenue to score through smalls or create enough pressure for opposition mistakes/turnovers. The third desired outcome is to get a stoppage and set up to lock it in.

The issue with this system is that it hasn't worked well all season. Where we were scoring heavily in the first part of the season was off opposition turnovers, moving the ball quickly to a less congested forward line. Since that aspect of our game has fallen off we have ended up with plan b to ignore lateral moves to find space inside forward 50 and simply bomb it in to forwards to spoil.

GWS were able to find different angles even in wet weather which is so frustrating to watch. When we have a mark or win the ball on a wing or around our HF I would love us to lower the eyes more, for out mids to get more involved as options moving into forward 50. Just some sort of different looks to make the opposition have to change things. Instead they know our 'by the percentages' method that they can exploit by freeing up their own backs to set up in lines to move the ball quickly and easily out of their back 50 to rebound.

We just put so much unnecessary pressure on this back-line and greater team with how we set up in forward half. 

Yes that is true and could understand it if we had a Curnow, McKay etc but we did the same thing last year and even Goody admitted towards the end of the season it was a problem but here we are saying the same thing again, as I have said before BBB mainly got all his goals at north on the lead and here we are still doing the same thing, if you watch the game again a classic It was in the 1st or 3rd quarter a melbourne was running along the corridor all by himself just jogging he did not call for it or did the player with the pill even looked sideways they are robots, we have one paced players in ANB, Harmes, Viney and Trac, Oliver has a bit of speed in him, ANB has a negative role, Harmes well don't get me started, maybe try McVee in the guts bring in Disco but just do something instead of doing the same thing over and over.

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

So this is the meat of the issue; we are not getting deep central entries. Our misses are as much a ‘red herring’ as loading is. We don’t get good looks so of course our accuracy is low. 

We need to address why we don’t get good entries. 77 expected score from 73 Inside 50s is not good.

It’s both. The expected score metric tells you that we’re not scoring what we’re expected to score based from the shots we’re generating. 

We’re taking too many shots on angles, but we’re missing too many shots that aren’t so hard. 

17 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

It’s both. The expected score metric tells you that we’re not scoring what we’re expected to score based from the shots we’re generating. 

We’re taking too many shots on angles, but we’re missing too many shots that aren’t so hard. 

It’s both, but don’t let ‘expected score’ fool us - we aren’t getting good looks.

11 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Also ...why is fatigue any more a factor/excuse/contingent with the Dees and not 17 other clubs ?

Its a furphy.

Agree

On 7/2/2023 at 7:21 PM, dee-tox said:

The lack of a decent small forward and midfileders that can consistently hit a target is our biggest issue.

Why Chandler, ANB, Kozzie etc keep getting games is beyond me. The message it sends to the Casey lads is terrible.

Then the lack of mids that can actually use the ball is also telling. Tracc, Viney, Sparrow, Brayshaw  etc are great ball winners but ordinary users. 

How many small forwards have kicked more goals than Kozzie this year, have more tackles etc.

11 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I also think our defence is outstanding.  Not sure yesterday was one of their better performances.

I doubt there will be many positional changes as this is the time we and other clubs bed down the best 22.  Having said that Fritsch's absence will force some sort of forward group rethink.

GWS scored 7-5 47! 
5-15 with more misses is the problem!

11 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

Sorry, are we supposed to be impressed by these stats? 

He may be holding his spot in this side, but compare him to the league and not his also-struggling team members, and you get a much more accurate depiction of where he’s at. 

No, he won’t get dropped. Simply not an option. But if you’re trying to make the case that we should be impressed with his recent form, you’ll understand if I politely tell you to make it somewhere else. 

So have you compared him to small forwards in the league. Go look at the stats per game.

5 hours ago, rpfc said:

But, again, 77 points from 73 I50s is not good. 45 is just awful but 77 is still revealing a poor connection forward.

Sure

In dry conditions.

And besides 77 inside 50s is very misleading.

I'm guessing half of them were reentries. Meaning the ball was coming back into a forward line with 30 odd players in there.

No space at all. No leading lanes. All but impossible to take a contested mark. Wet. Slippery. Chaos. 

We basically didnt score on transition. In part because the ball was in our forward half most of the time. Meaning there was almost always congestion ahead of the ball. And no overlap run meant no free players ahead of the ball. 

And again, its worth pointing out the giants scores to inside 50 efficiency was significantly worse than ours -  26% to our 36%. 

Unfortunately their goals to inside 50 ratio was a hell of a lot better than ours.

We kick straight. We win.

13 minutes ago, binman said:

Sure

In dry conditions.

And besides 77 inside 50s is very misleading.

I'm guessing half of them were reentries. Meaning the ball was coming back into a forward line with 30 odd players in there.

No space at all. No leading lanes. All but impossible to take a contested mark. Wet. Slippery. Chaos. 

We basically didnt score on transition. In part because the ball was in our forward half most of the time. Meaning there was almost always congestion ahead of the ball. And no overlap run meant no free players ahead of the ball. 

And again, its worth pointing out the giants scores to inside 50 efficiency was significantly worse than ours -  26% to our 36%. 

Unfortunately their goals to inside 50 ratio was a hell of a lot better than ours.

We kick straight. We win.

An accurate description of the day. We would always be entering a completely clogged arc because the ball would be turned over no further than the wing (rarely further forward for them).  Perhaps we need to add a dimension to this aspect of our game = switch, draw them out?  Kicking to massive contests means the shot is under pressure - consider if Trac had no pressure and more time.  Whether we were rushed, or just rushed, didn’t matter.  That crowded f50 means that our good work to get the turnover is unrewarded.

22 minutes ago, binman said:

Sure

In dry conditions.

And besides 77 inside 50s is very misleading.

I'm guessing half of them were reentries. Meaning the ball was coming back into a forward line with 30 odd players in there.

No space at all. No leading lanes. All but impossible to take a contested mark. Wet. Slippery. Chaos. 

We basically didnt score on transition. In part because the ball was in our forward half most of the time. Meaning there was almost always congestion ahead of the ball. And no overlap run meant no free players ahead of the ball. 

And again, its worth pointing out the giants scores to inside 50 efficiency was significantly worse than ours -  26% to our 36%. 

Unfortunately their goals to inside 50 ratio was a hell of a lot better than ours.

We kick straight. We win.

We should have won regardless, that can’t be the metric in this discussion. We should have been further ahead against Geelong at 3 qtr time and we should have been further ahead on Kings Bday and nearly lost. Freo and Carl were a mess too.

We have had terrible conversion on I50s for 5 weeks now - got little reward for effort and it’s not just accuracy at the goal.

On 7/2/2023 at 5:55 PM, DeeMee said:

Tell me again how Schache isn’t good enough. Perfect for our forward line.

Haha agree,

He'd offer more than Grundy surley?

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

It’s both, but don’t let ‘expected score’ fool us - we aren’t getting good looks.

Here's the AFLxScore map of shots:

Both our arguments are supported IMO.

We're taking too many shots from too far out on angles - look how many shots are wider than 40 degree angles.

But we're also missing too many shots from which we should be doing better - we missed three shots that the numbers say we should kick more often than not (one of which is rated over 5, which is a disaster to have missed), compared to GWS' one.

With the number of shots we had, and with the amount of the game spent in our forward half/50, we should have scored far more than 45 points. 

1 hour ago, binman said:

And besides 77 inside 50s is very misleading.

I'm guessing half of them were reentries. Meaning the ball was coming back into a forward line with 30 odd players in there.

No space at all. No leading lanes. All but impossible to take a contested mark. Wet. Slippery. Chaos. 

We basically didnt score on transition. In part because the ball was in our forward half most of the time. Meaning there was almost always congestion ahead of the ball. And no overlap run meant no free players ahead of the ball. 

I agree.

But this is intentional. This is what Goodwin wants - a strong forward press, domination of the territory game, and repeat entries.

Whilst I've said before that I don't believe Goodwin's press conferences reveal everything he's thinking or working on, he is consistent with his messaging that we are doing largely everything right and that if we work harder, the forward connection will come. But as you've pointed out, we're trying to score goals from messy entries in a congested forward half.

34 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree.

But this is intentional. This is what Goodwin wants - a strong forward press, domination of the territory game, and repeat entries.

Whilst I've said before that I don't believe Goodwin's press conferences reveal everything he's thinking or working on, he is consistent with his messaging that we are doing largely everything right and that if we work harder, the forward connection will come. But as you've pointed out, we're trying to score goals from messy entries in a congested forward half.

Agree.

The model works completely differently in the dry.

For one thing a forward line with three talls in it ( say resting ruck, bb, jvr) has a chance of marking - or in Brown's case keep his feet. And we convert more ground ball wins.

We can spread and switch, and take on more risky kicks. 

But in the wet, the model becomes too blunt. All congestion. Contest to contest. A battle.

Perfect for viney, but not many others.

And there's the rub.

Why doesn't goody change the approach?

One possibility is he believes the system is the key, and to maximise the likelihood every player executes their role on grand final day every game should be used as an opportunity to drill the system so it becomes instinctive.

For an infinite range of other possibilities, please see the Is Goodwin the right coach uber thread. 

17 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Getting a kick is a basic requirement of the game, yet those that get more are more highly rated than those who get less. Similar with i50 tackles, he’s 2nd in the comp at a basic requirement of his job, and in the top ~5% at other basic requirements. Makes him pretty good.

He isn’t in a slump, the team is. Every time he gets the ball there’s 29 other bodies inside 50, clear it out and you’d be amazed at what he can do.

Stupidly congested forward 50? That we can agree on..

That is the coaches system apparently  Defensive forward press !!!!

Goals Schmoles who needs them Right?

15 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Only 7.5 dead in front...

Our style often has us trying to thread a needle at worst....or kick through a doorway at best.

We dont play clever in the front 50...we make it hard....all by ourselves.

There are too many people in our forward line in my view

That's the coaches plan and it doesn't work and makes it more difficult to score

8 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Here's the AFLxScore map of shots:

Both our arguments are supported IMO.

We're taking too many shots from too far out on angles - look how many shots are wider than 40 degree angles.

But we're also missing too many shots from which we should be doing better - we missed three shots that the numbers say we should kick more often than not (one of which is rated over 5, which is a disaster to have missed), compared to GWS' one.

With the number of shots we had, and with the amount of the game spent in our forward half/50, we should have scored far more than 45 points. 

Thanks TU. Without the time to research this in depth, I would argue we would have a few missed ‘gimmies’ most games, leaving the shallow and wide shots the more considerable culprit.

I would also argue against this growing point from a few that these are ‘reentries’ due to our high press.

That is what you get with a high press. That is by design.

Its a feature, not a bug. 

If we can’t maximise it and kick more than 70 points, we shouldn’t play it and we should sit back more and develop chains off half back.

So ‘reentries’ is another excuse for our poor connection and delivery into the forward line.

I listened to the song Don't Worry Be Happy by Bobby McFerrin 15 times yesterday..

I’m hearing Fritch is out for 6-8!weeks, having surgery today. 

18 hours ago, defuture15 said:

66 points

 

The cumulative points we have beaten by over our 6 losses!

The biggest 2 losses being 27 and 15 points

Being in control for the majority of these games

Running out of time to get it right

Thats the way Goodwin likes to play. He prefers the strangulation/arm wrestle method to keep us in more games and give us chances to win, He talks about that a lot.

Except for the last two years in the second half of the season we don't

15 hours ago, Young Blood said:

Unfortunately the "system" IS to kick deeper to forward packs where the plan is to have no intention to mark but to simply bring the ball to ground to create chaos ideally to find an avenue to score through smalls or create enough pressure for opposition mistakes/turnovers. The third desired outcome is to get a stoppage and set up to lock it in.

The issue with this system is that it hasn't worked well all season. Where we were scoring heavily in the first part of the season was off opposition turnovers, moving the ball quickly to a less congested forward line. Since that aspect of our game has fallen off we have ended up with plan b to ignore lateral moves to find space inside forward 50 and simply bomb it in to forwards to spoil.

GWS were able to find different angles even in wet weather which is so frustrating to watch. When we have a mark or win the ball on a wing or around our HF I would love us to lower the eyes more, for out mids to get more involved as options moving into forward 50. Just some sort of different looks to make the opposition have to change things. Instead they know our 'by the percentages' method that they can exploit by freeing up their own backs to set up in lines to move the ball quickly and easily out of their back 50 to rebound.

We just put so much unnecessary pressure on this back-line and greater team with how we set up in forward half. 

How many goals have we scored in the last 13 or so games where a forward has led towards the kicker and marked out in front.

I am struggling to think of too many.

We make it so hard for ourselves.