This ‘Premiership era’ wasted inside 50

[Bingo 235]

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

You could easily argue that we lower our eyes 2 more times and we win the game. I think there's a bit of panic that crept in and we don't have that one beautiful user who could lower the eyes and lace out a forward. Salem's drop off has cost us. Would have loved to have seen him running forward with the ball in hand in the last quarter. I really hope kickers are on our shopping list this Spring.

 

Yet in the vfl we have Spargo who a year or 2 ago was one of the best I50 kicks in the competition...

[Roost it far 6,055]

3 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

And then how would the defence set up? Chaos for them; chaos for us, too. In other words, we'd have to win by luck.

The way we attack has a defensive function. It locks the oppo in to a spot they can't get out of. Hence the huge number of re-entries. It keeps the balls in our hand and not the oppo's - with the welcome consequence of them not being able to score - and tires them out. We wear them down with superior fitness and kick goals (most of the time) and win. 

You don't win by luck with chaos entry, the Tiges won the 2017 flag this way.

[beelzebub 22,225]

2 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Given our lack of tall feds who can take a mark in a pack, our bombing it in was just a complete waste.

It's effectively scattergun footy.

 

[Roost it far 6,055]

Just now, Bingo said:

Yet in the vfl we have Spargo who a year or 2 ago was one of the best I50 kicks in the competition...

Who's sadly out of form and regularly gets held to less than 10 possessions. If he could get 15-20 a game he'd play every game of the year. I was hoping he'd work his way back in and remain hopeful he can find his mojo in 24.

[praha 10,277]

We were so good in 2021 if we play even remotely below that it's seen as playing "poorly". We played okay on Thursday I thought but blew it big time.

Questionable if we can turn it around against one of the best defenses in the league. Carlton isn't knocking down the door offensively either.

We lower the eyes and play the corridor for max 20 minutes a game. I miss the days when we'd blow a game over at the start.

[Stiff Arm 4,412]

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

Yet you'll hear the 'real experts' on here try and make any excuse possible to play down what has been fundemental flaw and weakness in our game for so long. 

And the number one reason we lose games we should win. 

Oh, but we had 4 out of bounds in the last!!! 

🙄

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

11 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

And then how would the defence set up? Chaos for them; chaos for us, too. In other words, we'd have to win by luck.

The way we attack has a defensive function. It locks the oppo in to a spot they can't get out of. Hence the huge number of re-entries. It keeps the balls in our hand and not the oppo's - with the welcome consequence of them not being able to score - and tires them out. We wear them down with superior fitness and kick goals (most of the time) and win. 

 

7 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

You don't win by luck with chaos entry, the Tiges won the 2017 flag this way.

Chaos was the reductionist terminology used. It’s not chaotic (Hardwick and co would have loved that phrase), as the interpretation is that there is no real strategy.

that is patently false.

there was structure AS well as move it toward at all cost mentality - or as I’d put it - a territory game.

[Dockett 32 1,213]

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Who's sadly out of form and regularly gets held to less than 10 possessions. If he could get 15-20 a game he'd play every game of the year. I was hoping he'd work his way back in and remain hopeful he can find his mojo in 24.

And neither do the other small forwards if we’re brutally honest and that’s part of our coward line malaise.

[Stiff Arm 4,412]

Many times this year where we've played daring, skillful footy for a quarter and blown the game apart. Vs Brisbane was a good example. Fast movement i50, players leading to the ball carrier, chaos ball rather than long bombs, more open forward line

Certainly there's more to it than this, but one thing we know for sure: bombing it on top of forwards does not work fir us in finals against good teams

[Grr-owl 1,075]

32 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

You don't win by luck with chaos entry, the Tiges won the 2017 flag this way.

And the teams responded tactically.... Five years on, we aren't going to win that way. Don't have the right players.

[Bingo 235]

56 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Who's sadly out of form and regularly gets held to less than 10 possessions. If he could get 15-20 a game he'd play every game of the year. I was hoping he'd work his way back in and remain hopeful he can find his mojo in 24.

I agree with you, but it's worth the risk playing him as we have no contested marking forwards and need quality delivery.

[Roost it far 6,055]

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

And the teams responded tactically.... Five years on, we aren't going to win that way. Don't have the right players.

We don’t play that way, in fact the 2 times replayed on On The Couch when our kick ins were unpredictable we took marks inside 50…….at the very least we need to stop bombing it in. I thought Gary Lyon’s analysis was spot on.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Roost it far

[don cordner 165]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:32 PM, McQueen said:

Prefacing this with the fact I’ve had a few of a variety. 
 

But FMD, this is an absolute blight on the front half of our game. The massive effort we apply behind that phase isn’t to be questioned - even the defence provided by the small forwards. But the entry is quite plainly ABSOLUTELY [censored]!

We are wasting our best chances of winning Cups with poor recruiting and trading to keep our forward line the same age as the rest of the team.

Data below proves this. 

But seriously I can’t help but feel we’ve underinvested in our forwards. Was it hanging onto Weids hoping the kid would come good?
Was it giving Tmac a long and expensive deal after his 53 goal heroics in 2018 that changed our list strategy?

But…

….maybe 

It’s our game plan finally coming undone.

‘Contest and Defence’ Goody says…

Offence anybody?

You simply shouldn’t go within goal range as much as we do and yield such a well below par result. 

PS: posting this at 3 qtr time so still hoping we get up but to be fair we should be in front enough to ice the game - bar for our forward half game.

 

Go Dee’s! 🔴🔵💥

 

 

Lol how can this era be waisted ? We are not finished with it yet, god some posters are drainers

[McQueen 17,863]

5 minutes ago, don cordner said:

Lol how can this era be waisted ? We are not finished with it yet, god some posters are drainers

Don’t let it affect you so much mate. 
 

Maybe you could add to the conversation?

[Boots and all 894]

6 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

And then how would the defence set up? Chaos for them; chaos for us, too. In other words, we'd have to win by luck.

The way we attack has a defensive function. It locks the oppo in to a spot they can't get out of. Hence the huge number of re-entries. It keeps the balls in our hand and not the oppo's - with the welcome consequence of them not being able to score - and tires them out. We wear them down with superior fitness and kick goals (most of the time) and win. 

I don't particularly like either approach and I'm certainly not a fan of ground balls into the 50. I maintain that we play our best footy with a more open forward line that allows us to hit targets. 

[Roost it far 6,055]

3 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

I don't particularly like either approach and I'm certainly not a fan of ground balls into the 50. I maintain that we play our best footy with a more open forward line that allows us to hit targets. 

Get the forwards to push up and leave Kosi and Trac in the Arc, we'd kick 60 goals a game.

[Demonland 64,812]

 

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

2 hours ago, Boots and all said:

more open forward line that allows us to hit targets. 

That's every teams ideal @Boots and all - rarely is it like this due to defensive structures, zone defence and aerobic capacity of all players.

That's why there is ostensibly ZERO one on one defence any more, unlike the 'halycon' days of 1980's and 1990's (or whenever any of you reading this was a child, pre 2000).

😁

So if it's true that it is the ideal, then, do you try to manufacture the ideal, or do you accept that you cannot really manufacture it due to those factors listed and look at other strategic ways of of winning, where an open forward line is unlikely.

Looking at a range of metrics of what give you a greater percentage of chances or goal scoring opportunities (irrespective of the outcome)... closer to the boundaries and hard shots, or aim for the middle and as one consequence,  get cut up on the rebound...

These are the things that the great minds of the game (including Goodwin, much to the chagrin of some) ponder, whilst looking at the list in its current form and how do we get the best from a list, who have had much of the forward line either injured, or returning from injury...

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Engorged Onion

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 5,795]

9 hours ago, praha said:

We were so good in 2021 if we play even remotely below that it's seen as playing "poorly". We played okay on Thursday I thought but blew it big time.

Questionable if we can turn it around against one of the best defenses in the league. Carlton isn't knocking down the door offensively either.

We lower the eyes and play the corridor for max 20 minutes a game. I miss the days when we'd blow a game over at the start.

1st quarter we looked slow out of the blocks, composure in front of goal was diabolical and ultimately cost us the game.

[dazzledavey36 48,739]

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by dazzledavey36

[rpfc 27,451]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

This isn’t instruction, it’s execution but it’s the kind of execution you get when it is seemingly meaningless what you do with the footy inside 50.

’Defence first, defence first’ should be a quiet reminder, not a slogan.

We essentially burnt our entries inside 50 last year to protect our mids and backs we were so banged up; long and to the pocket. 

I really think we are still dealing with the impact of that hubris and contempt for the game; ‘we can’t get anything near to our best with fit VFL players instead of first timers so let’s try to game the system hanging on to leads and ruining the natural instinct of creativity and boldness going past centre.’

I don’t see it being sorted out in the next three weeks and it’s so disappointing - we are the best team in my view in 2/3 of the game - defence and ‘in dispute’ - but bottom 4 offensively…

[Demonstone 19,108]

10 hours ago, don cordner said:

some posters are drainers

They're guttered?

[Boots and all 894]

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

That's every teams ideal @Boots and all - rarely is it like this due to defensive structures, zone defence and aerobic capacity of all players.

That's why there is ostensibly ZERO one on one defence any more, unlike the 'halycon' days of 1980's and 1990's (or whenever any of you reading this was a child, pre 2000).

😁

So if it's true that it is the ideal, then, do you try to manufacture the ideal, or do you accept that you cannot really manufacture it due to those factors listed and look at other strategic ways of of winning, where an open forward line is unlikely.

Looking at a range of metrics of what give you a greater percentage of chances or goal scoring opportunities (irrespective of the outcome)... closer to the boundaries and hard shots, or aim for the middle and as one consequence,  get cut up on the rebound...

These are the things that the great minds of the game (including Goodwin, much to the chagrin of some) ponder, whilst looking at the list in its current form and how do we get the best from a list, who have had much of the forward line either injured, or returning from injury...

 

 

It is a conundrum and of course there is no silver bullet. The strategy worked in 2021, so it obviously has merit. But teams will inevitably adapt and you need to modify your own game to counter. I don't believe it needs a dramatic shift either, just a few select players drawing their opponent to a certain area of the F50 to create space, I'm not suggesting a reincarnation of Pagan's Paddock (for those born well before 2000 😉).

Thinking further, I think it is execution that results in the strategy being less effective.

The blind long bomb from the middle of a pack is fruitless and  regularly ends up with an uncontested mark. Max had huge game against the Filth, but he was the primary culprit. One or two handballs and then you are at least in a position to kick to advantage.

The other problem I have is players kicking long into the 50 from too far out and landing the ball 35-40 m from goal. IMV long kicks into a crowded 50 need to be deep,  landing 20-25 m from goal. Most players can't snap cleanly under pressure from 35-40, especially with tired legs, and thus scoring dries up.

Which leads to our other issue. The strategy is heavily reliant on small forwards working their butts off to get front and centre and then working hard defensively to keep the ball locked in. With repeat entries something has to give and  if these two things don't happen our defence can get opened up on the rebound.

I'm sure Goody still has a trick or two up his sleeve...at least I hope so.

[Fromgotowoewodin 726]

The going theory seems to be that it’s just our game plan and there’s no other way around it, we just have to accept the junk i50s and hope we snag a couple of extra goals through better conversion – doesn’t seem like a sustainable way to win finals and I doubt that’s what the coaches are staking their careers on. It is actually the connection (Goody hasn’t been lying to us). 

Yes, our disposal & kicking efficiency aren’t great, both are below the AFL average (DE% is 70.9% vs AFL average 72.7%), however in our wins we’re up at DE% of 73% and our losses we’re at 67%. Oppositions also only average 71% against us overall, and 69% in our losses indicating pressure is up on both sides in our games. 

Our defence is rock solid, 49.4 i50s against us over the season, 47.9 against us when we win, slightly up at 52.3 when we lose. Points against are 71.7 all year, 69.9 against when we win, 75.1 against when we lose. Hardly any difference, under a goal. 

What does make a difference is our forward half. I50s don’t vary that much, season average is 58.2, in wins we average 59.4 and losses 55.8 – a difference of 3.6 i50s, but when you look at scoring in wins we average 100.5 points and losses 65.5, so how does a difference of 3.6 i50s equate to a difference of 35 points? 

Is it just goal kicking accuracy? No. If we just converted our 19.9 scoring shots in losses at our season average of 54% (goals per scoring shot) we’d kick 11.9 – 75 points which is a draw against our opposition’s score against us in losses. Over the season we average 13.11, in wins 15.11, losses 9.11 – 6 goals better when we win, 6 straight that is. It’s not conversion of behinds into goals, its conversion of i50s into goals. And why the difference? Marks i50 – we average 15 marks i50 in wins, and 9 in losses – there’s that difference of 6 again. 6 more marks i50, 6 more good chances at goal, 6 more goals.

In losses we average 55.8 i50s, which we convert into scoring shots at 37% (vs 41% season average). If we converted i50s at the season average we’d have 23 scoring shots instead of 19.9, and at our season average conversion we’d kick 12.11.85 – enough to beat the average score against us of 75 points without improving our conversion beyond the overall season average. If we had converted our 69 i50s into scoring shots at our usual 41% we would’ve had 28 scoring shots and kicked 15.13.105. Easy win. 

Now yes repeat entries only happen when you don’t score goals, so if we’d been hitting targets and kicking goals we would’ve never got near 69 i50s, but nor would we have needed to. We beat them convincingly on KB in our second worst goal-kicking effort of the year with 59 i50s (+10), we didn’t need +32 if we hit targets. 

We can afford to open up the game more and create space i50 – we’ve done it at times through the year and Brisbane and Essendon are the only teams to get 100+ against us. But what we have to do is find targets. We don’t have targets you say? Everyone’s injured? Yes Petty is out (premiership CHB, not a longstanding pillar of our forward line, though it’d be nice to have him). Yes Melksham is out (who only came in from the cold in rd 16). BBB out, probably not coming back – he’s the only one of our premiership forward line or our first choice early season line-up unavailable.

We need more out of TMac who is coming off an injury, and I think Gawn needs to go forward with Grundy in to do more rucking. But Max needs to move. Standing 20m out waving for the ball isn’t the way, he’s marked on the lead before and he needs to do more of it. Defenders will panic if he’s on the move, they aren’t so worried when he’s standing still as they’re seemingly allowed to hold him and jump all over him without any penalty.

We need the forwards to move and create space, and the mids to move it quicker but slower, quicker ball movement but slower thinking, they’re panicking with the ball and dumping it i50 because there’s too much hesitation going from half back to half forward.  Hit targets and we win this week, and would win a GF against the Pies or Giants – the challenging bit now would be Brisbane who’ve unlocked our defence twice so we’d need an above average score to beat them, but we can worry about that after we beat the Blues.

[demoncat 631]

1 hour ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

The going theory seems to be that it’s just our game plan and there’s no other way around it, we just have to accept the junk i50s and hope we snag a couple of extra goals through better conversion – doesn’t seem like a sustainable way to win finals and I doubt that’s what the coaches are staking their careers on. It is actually the connection (Goody hasn’t been lying to us). 

Yes, our disposal & kicking efficiency aren’t great, both are below the AFL average (DE% is 70.9% vs AFL average 72.7%), however in our wins we’re up at DE% of 73% and our losses we’re at 67%. Oppositions also only average 71% against us overall, and 69% in our losses indicating pressure is up on both sides in our games. 

Our defence is rock solid, 49.4 i50s against us over the season, 47.9 against us when we win, slightly up at 52.3 when we lose. Points against are 71.7 all year, 69.9 against when we win, 75.1 against when we lose. Hardly any difference, under a goal. 

What does make a difference is our forward half. I50s don’t vary that much, season average is 58.2, in wins we average 59.4 and losses 55.8 – a difference of 3.6 i50s, but when you look at scoring in wins we average 100.5 points and losses 65.5, so how does a difference of 3.6 i50s equate to a difference of 35 points? 

Is it just goal kicking accuracy? No. If we just converted our 19.9 scoring shots in losses at our season average of 54% (goals per scoring shot) we’d kick 11.9 – 75 points which is a draw against our opposition’s score against us in losses. Over the season we average 13.11, in wins 15.11, losses 9.11 – 6 goals better when we win, 6 straight that is. It’s not conversion of behinds into goals, its conversion of i50s into goals. And why the difference? Marks i50 – we average 15 marks i50 in wins, and 9 in losses – there’s that difference of 6 again. 6 more marks i50, 6 more good chances at goal, 6 more goals.

In losses we average 55.8 i50s, which we convert into scoring shots at 37% (vs 41% season average). If we converted i50s at the season average we’d have 23 scoring shots instead of 19.9, and at our season average conversion we’d kick 12.11.85 – enough to beat the average score against us of 75 points without improving our conversion beyond the overall season average. If we had converted our 69 i50s into scoring shots at our usual 41% we would’ve had 28 scoring shots and kicked 15.13.105. Easy win. 

Now yes repeat entries only happen when you don’t score goals, so if we’d been hitting targets and kicking goals we would’ve never got near 69 i50s, but nor would we have needed to. We beat them convincingly on KB in our second worst goal-kicking effort of the year with 59 i50s (+10), we didn’t need +32 if we hit targets. 

We can afford to open up the game more and create space i50 – we’ve done it at times through the year and Brisbane and Essendon are the only teams to get 100+ against us. But what we have to do is find targets. We don’t have targets you say? Everyone’s injured? Yes Petty is out (premiership CHB, not a longstanding pillar of our forward line, though it’d be nice to have him). Yes Melksham is out (who only came in from the cold in rd 16). BBB out, probably not coming back – he’s the only one of our premiership forward line or our first choice early season line-up unavailable.

We need more out of TMac who is coming off an injury, and I think Gawn needs to go forward with Grundy in to do more rucking. But Max needs to move. Standing 20m out waving for the ball isn’t the way, he’s marked on the lead before and he needs to do more of it. Defenders will panic if he’s on the move, they aren’t so worried when he’s standing still as they’re seemingly allowed to hold him and jump all over him without any penalty.

We need the forwards to move and create space, and the mids to move it quicker but slower, quicker ball movement but slower thinking, they’re panicking with the ball and dumping it i50 because there’s too much hesitation going from half back to half forward.  Hit targets and we win this week, and would win a GF against the Pies or Giants – the challenging bit now would be Brisbane who’ve unlocked our defence twice so we’d need an above average score to beat them, but we can worry about that after we beat the Blues.

Great analysis 🙌