Forward line questions

[Redleg_Knowledge 36]

One thing I'll add to this thread is the following:

In the Freo game, two pieces of play made by Petracca are the gold standard for what we need when entering inside 50 under minimal pressure. 

He hit both Oliver and Billings with good kicks but even better decision making. The kicks end up being the easiest part of those passages. 

Now, if we want to see better looks at goal, a more functional forward line, better overall accuracy and far less wasted inside 50's, we need our mids and half forwards to be able to make these types of decision more often than they do. 

Edited Friday at 03:49 by Redleg_Knowledge

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,685]

2 hours ago, Docs Demons said:

I reckon the Forward line is working OK. Keep having 35 shots at goal, particularly against a decent back line like the Dockers with quite a few from so called easy range and spots then we will win most games. Also, we had all these chances without JVR. 

I would be interested to see stats of where we took shots from in that Freo match. Felt like we actually did give ourselves a lot of good shots from near the corridor, but just didn’t slot enough of them. I could be wrong, but that’s just how it felt. 

[GS_1905 319]

On footy classified Hird mentioned that his view on Goody was pretty much what we have all said. He favours low scoring , stoppage based , boundary line biased footy. He’ll prioritise limiting scoring over  hitting the score board.

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

[greenwaves 515]

9 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

It is possible.   Damien Hardwick changed his philosophy and game plan a lot in the year of his first premiership.  It is difficult though.

I don't read replies or reactions 

 

 

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,685]

14 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

On footy classified Hird mentioned that his view on Goody was pretty much what we have all said. He favours low scoring , stoppage based , boundary line biased footy. He’ll prioritise limiting scoring over  hitting the score board.

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

Well we did generate 30 genuine scoring shots (4 rushed behinds) against Freo, which suggests we are trying to score more rather than only focus on defence. If we did that every week and kick for goal at 50%, we would score 15.15 or 105 points per game.

Swans averaged the most points per game in the regular season for 2024 at 97.5 roughly.

Edited Friday at 04:27 by DistrACTION Jackson

[jnrmac 20,338]

17 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

On footy classified Hird mentioned that his view on Goody was pretty much what we have all said. He favours low scoring , stoppage based , boundary line biased footy. He’ll prioritise limiting scoring over  hitting the score board.

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

The problem here is we get beaten the same way. Chipping around our zone. Dirty balls i50 and avoiding May and Lever at all costs.

And we get smashed on fast transition - as do most teams I guess.

 

(i read all replies, reactions and comments because I get really anxious about what other posters think about me)

 

Edited Friday at 04:30 by jnrmac

[In Harmes Way 7,869]

20 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

On footy classified Hird mentioned that his view on Goody was pretty much what we have all said. He favours low scoring , stoppage based , boundary line biased footy. He’ll prioritise limiting scoring over  hitting the score board.

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

Not when he thinks it will win us finals, and the alternative won't.

[GS_1905 319]

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The problem here is we get beaten the same way. Chipping around our zone. Dirty balls i50 and avoiding May and Lever at all costs.

And we get smashed on fast transition - as do most teams I guess.

 

(i read all replies, reactions and comments because I get really anxious about what other posters think about me)

 

Yeah I agree with this. Ground balls in d50 are a massive vulnerability. We lack agility in our defenders as well as our forwards. 

Teams are now targeting and recruiting a more athletic type of footy player to try and play the outside game and beat you with skill rather than strength. 

 

[Adam The God 30,705]

5 hours ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

This is super interesting. I never realised the whole wide entry thing was very deliberate. 

It explains a lot from the past few years, namely how boring we are to watch (which is fine by me as long as we're winning) and how often we seem to squander inside 50s (which is not fine by me, because the 2023 Carlton semi final still fuels my nightmares).

I think it was you mentioning in the Fremantle game thread that one of the reasons the Dockers (on the weekend and multiple times previously), seem to walk through us and kick shockingly easy goals with one, two or three blokes free inside 50, is because we press very high, which makes us helpless when a team gets a quick turnover and moves the ball fast. 

It sounds like hugging the boundary inside 50 is directly related to that. 

I was frustrated on the weekend by how the way we move the ball has obviously changed but the inside 50 squandering hasn't. Do you think Goodwin is keen for us to change how we get the ball from deep in the backline to 70-odd metres out but will still stick to wide entries and a high press?

 

We really don't press that high anymore. In 2017-2019, sure, but we have usually five anchors behind the ball.

Under Bassett, we may well press higher, but I doubt it. I think it'll be an evolution of the first half of last year, where we actively sat back really deep, so as it allow ourselves space to slingshot back into behind the opposition.

This is the 2022-2024 game style. The sides that transition quickly off that slingshot at half back, can hit those kicks and maintain possession can beat pretty much any zone. 

We need to work out how best to use our stoppage and contest dominance. I'm actually fine with us gambling a lot from centre stoppages and going for pure out the front clearances, and therefore opening ourselves up to losing territory 50% of the time, meaning we play from our back half. 

But all games are fluid and different, so it'll be about taking our chances when we move the ball inside 50.

Where we could get on top is our fitness. Guys like Langdon, Sharp, Spargo, Billings, Sparrow and Windsor are all really good aerobic runners. 

[Go Ds 314]

3 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

That's a really good question and I'd be keen to know as well.

The Port game in round 3 was definitely one we got away with on expected scores. Whilst the GWS and Carlton losses I'd say we would've won on expected scores. Maybe even the Collingwood loss on Kings Bday as they were nailing everything and we couldn't hit the side of the barn.

I'm pretty certain I saw the expected scores had Collingwood beating us by a single-figure margin. We lost to them by an actual margin again in the last game too. So I'm sure they were a better team than we were, especially the team in freefall after the first Freo game.

[Go Ds 314]

2 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

 

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

Surely! If the club, players or supporters are unhappy enough the coach will have to. What's the saying about there being only two types of coaches? (Those that have been sacked and those that haven't been sacked yet.)

[DeeSpencer 26,661]

2 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

On footy classified Hird mentioned that his view on Goody was pretty much what we have all said. He favours low scoring , stoppage based , boundary line biased footy. He’ll prioritise limiting scoring over  hitting the score board.

Can you get the coach to fundamentally change his philosophy? 

We didn't have the key backs or a deep 2 way running midfield but Goody took over from the most uninspiring Paul Roos footy and built a very strong attacking side in 16, 17, 18. I don't think that was ever the plan as the finished product but our attack was building really well.

And in 2021 whilst we were more boundary focused it was always quick movement. We seemed to regress in 2022 as everyone got tired. But 2023 had flashes of change and last year they absolutely tried to change but didn't have any players to adapt.

The big factor this year is whether we have the players to adapt. We've certainly moved magnets but there's some old dog, new trick guys that concern me. Mostly in midfield skill and backline run. As well as the bandaid that is Max Gawn that holds us back at times (not blaming Max, just our players know he's there).

[DeeSpencer 26,661]

1 hour ago, Adam The God said:

Under Bassett, we may well press higher, but I doubt it. I think it'll be an evolution of the first half of last year, where we actively sat back really deep, so as it allow ourselves space to slingshot back into behind the opposition.

This is the 2022-2024 game style. The sides that transition quickly off that slingshot at half back, can hit those kicks and maintain possession can beat pretty much any zone. 

Collingwood pushed really high but kept at least one defender (generally Moore but sometimes Quaynor and Murphy) back and would often get bailed out of 1 on 2 or 2 on 3 because they'd be sitting deep and have a clear run at the footy

So often we'd bomb it long to Moore and have a guy running free in the forward pocket.

Their pressure dropped just a smidge and teams started to find that spare guy last year.

Geelong are always staying at home. Brisbane fairly at home too. Both of those sides use kicking to make the ground big once they turn the ball over and slow suck up forwards and midfielders to chase down uncontested kicks. Then go forward in to open forwards lines by spacing their forwards out. I reckon with Hipwood/Morris and Neale/Cameron they've both started to hit leading CHF's in their ball movement too which is something that went way out of the game.

Skills are a factor, but neither Geelong nor Brisbane have amazingly skilled backlines. What both teams do have is midfields and forwards that are drilled like soccer teams and know how to move off the ball for each other to create spaces in the zones. Both teams as failed in finals for multiple years because they mucked around with the footy, weren't direct enough and would turn it over in high pressure moments.

A big question is whether our bash and crash big 3 mids are willing to add smart unrewarded off ball running to their games after they've had years of getting to the feet of the long down the line kick.

 

[monoccular 17,748]

6 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

I found it incredibly frustrating last year where even when we got out the back had an open forwardline all our forwards ran to the pocket rather than presenting a lead and what should have been easy goals or at least decent set shots were easily defended by the opposition.

Incredibly frustrating - all running to the same position. 
I thought that I read in some out the early match sims this preseason that there was much more spread from the forwards. Was this so, and now abandoned or was I mislead?

[WheeloRatings 1,189]

5 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Great stuff, as always.

Your site also tells us that in 2024 we scored more than our Expected Score across the season.

On its face, this tells us that our inaccuracy last year comes principally from taking low-percentage shots on goal. We take far too many shots from angles (and interestingly, mainly the left hand side).

@WheeloRatings Do you have the ability to break down how many games we lost where we ought to have won based on xScore, and vice versa? I'm interested to know whether the xScore across the season is skewed by outliers.

You are correct re shot difficulty. Melbourne's shot rating last season was 7th best, but average expected score per shot (i.e. difficulty) was 16th. Based on expected score, Melbourne's "expected wins" was 10.0 so we outperformed expectation (in relation to expected scores).

Forgive the wide table, but here is a dump of all the key xscore data for Melbourne last season. We won three games where we lost on xscore (Rounds 3, 15, 18), and we only lost one game where we won on xscore (Round 9).

Rnd	Opposition	For			Against			xWins	Result	Margin	xMargin
		Score	xScore	+/-	Score	xScore	+/-
0	Sydney	64	65.5	−1.5	86	82.3	3.7	16.8%	Loss	-22	−16.8
1	Western Bulldogs	109	85.5	23.5	64	68.8	−4.8	82.5%	Win	45	16.7
2	Hawthorn	93	78.0	15.0	38	47.0	−9.0	97.8%	Win	55	31.0
3	Port Adelaide	96	60.7	35.3	89	91.7	−2.7	3.5%	Win	7	−31.0
4	Adelaide	78	84.7	−6.7	63	78.7	−15.7	63.3%	Win	15	6.0
5	Brisbane	60	60.5	−0.5	82	83.2	−1.2	7.0%	Loss	-22	−22.7
7	Richmond	85	75.5	9.5	42	57.1	−15.1	88.0%	Win	43	18.4
8	Geelong	74	83.7	−9.7	66	61.3	4.7	89.5%	Win	8	22.4
9	Carlton	76	77.7	−1.7	77	53.8	23.2	94.4%	Loss	-1	23.9
10	West Coast	70	64.7	5.3	105	104.8	0.2	1.1%	Loss	-35	−40.1
11	St Kilda	100	100.2	−0.2	62	80.6	−18.6	88.2%	Win	38	19.6
12	Fremantle	49	56.8	−7.8	141	117.5	23.5	0.0%	Loss	-92	−60.7
13	Collingwood	51	66.1	−15.1	89	70.5	18.5	39.7%	Loss	-38	−4.5
15	North Melbourne	70	55.3	14.7	67	62.0	5.0	31.0%	Win	3	−6.7
16	Brisbane	81	80.6	0.4	86	88.9	−2.9	32.3%	Loss	-5	−8.3
17	West Coast	112	102.7	9.3	58	65.2	−7.2	99.1%	Win	54	37.5
18	Essendon	84	69.2	14.8	67	75.5	−8.5	34.2%	Win	17	−6.3
19	Fremantle	66	59.7	6.3	116	123.7	−7.7	0.0%	Loss	-50	−64.0
20	Greater Western Sydney	83	68.1	14.9	85	80.5	4.5	21.1%	Loss	-2	−12.4
21	Western Bulldogs	59	59.5	−0.5	110	132.6	−22.6	0.0%	Loss	-51	−73.0
22	Port Adelaide	51	62.8	−11.8	53	79.3	−26.3	15.7%	Loss	-2	−16.5
23	Gold Coast	117	103.4	13.6	63	61.0	2.0	99.5%	Win	54	42.3
24	Collingwood	57	60.1	−3.1	103	114.8	−11.8	0.1%	Loss	-46	−54.7

[KozzyCan 946]

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

We didn't have the key backs or a deep 2 way running midfield but Goody took over from the most uninspiring Paul Roos footy and built a very strong attacking side in 16, 17, 18. I don't think that was ever the plan as the finished product but our attack was building really well.

And in 2021 whilst we were more boundary focused it was always quick movement. We seemed to regress in 2022 as everyone got tired. But 2023 had flashes of change and last year they absolutely tried to change but didn't have any players to adapt.

The big factor this year is whether we have the players to adapt. We've certainly moved magnets but there's some old dog, new trick guys that concern me. Mostly in midfield skill and backline run. As well as the bandaid that is Max Gawn that holds us back at times (not blaming Max, just our players know he's there).

Harsh on Roos

[DeeSpencer 26,661]

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Harsh on Roos

Roos did a very good job for us but if we can change from 14/15 we can change from now. We were 61 and 72 points per game back there. Now scoring is lower and we were still 78 points per game. 

[monoccular 17,748]

5 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Gee Tom barrass wouldn't know the feeling winning in r1 coming from west coast. 

Well at least the season has finally started 

Actually, according to the wise heads who ru(i)n the AFL, Barass hasn’t played round 1 and the season hasn’t started. 

[Vineytime 855]

This may have been discussed here previously. 
 

2023 National Draft 

7. Caleb Windsor

10. Nate Caddy

Love Windsor and he will be very good. 
We missed one here though, Caddy & JVR would have been 👌👌👌

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. 

[Demonsone 2,056]

The game plan was built around contest defence and multiple fwd 50 entries, it won us finals & a flag convincingly, but have failed to find a power fwds since 21 , instead trying to turn defenders into fwds with both T Mac & petty heading back, JVR need support yet we trade for vfl players, not to mention the Grundy disaster 

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,527]

14 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

You are correct re shot difficulty. Melbourne's shot rating last season was 7th best, but average expected score per shot (i.e. difficulty) was 16th. Based on expected score, Melbourne's "expected wins" was 10.0 so we outperformed expectation (in relation to expected scores).

Forgive the wide table, but here is a dump of all the key xscore data for Melbourne last season. We won three games where we lost on xscore (Rounds 3, 15, 18), and we only lost one game where we won on xscore (Round 9).

Rnd	Opposition	For			Against			xWins	Result	Margin	xMargin
		Score	xScore	+/-	Score	xScore	+/-
0	Sydney	64	65.5	−1.5	86	82.3	3.7	16.8%	Loss	-22	−16.8
1	Western Bulldogs	109	85.5	23.5	64	68.8	−4.8	82.5%	Win	45	16.7
2	Hawthorn	93	78.0	15.0	38	47.0	−9.0	97.8%	Win	55	31.0
3	Port Adelaide	96	60.7	35.3	89	91.7	−2.7	3.5%	Win	7	−31.0
4	Adelaide	78	84.7	−6.7	63	78.7	−15.7	63.3%	Win	15	6.0
5	Brisbane	60	60.5	−0.5	82	83.2	−1.2	7.0%	Loss	-22	−22.7
7	Richmond	85	75.5	9.5	42	57.1	−15.1	88.0%	Win	43	18.4
8	Geelong	74	83.7	−9.7	66	61.3	4.7	89.5%	Win	8	22.4
9	Carlton	76	77.7	−1.7	77	53.8	23.2	94.4%	Loss	-1	23.9
10	West Coast	70	64.7	5.3	105	104.8	0.2	1.1%	Loss	-35	−40.1
11	St Kilda	100	100.2	−0.2	62	80.6	−18.6	88.2%	Win	38	19.6
12	Fremantle	49	56.8	−7.8	141	117.5	23.5	0.0%	Loss	-92	−60.7
13	Collingwood	51	66.1	−15.1	89	70.5	18.5	39.7%	Loss	-38	−4.5
15	North Melbourne	70	55.3	14.7	67	62.0	5.0	31.0%	Win	3	−6.7
16	Brisbane	81	80.6	0.4	86	88.9	−2.9	32.3%	Loss	-5	−8.3
17	West Coast	112	102.7	9.3	58	65.2	−7.2	99.1%	Win	54	37.5
18	Essendon	84	69.2	14.8	67	75.5	−8.5	34.2%	Win	17	−6.3
19	Fremantle	66	59.7	6.3	116	123.7	−7.7	0.0%	Loss	-50	−64.0
20	Greater Western Sydney	83	68.1	14.9	85	80.5	4.5	21.1%	Loss	-2	−12.4
21	Western Bulldogs	59	59.5	−0.5	110	132.6	−22.6	0.0%	Loss	-51	−73.0
22	Port Adelaide	51	62.8	−11.8	53	79.3	−26.3	15.7%	Loss	-2	−16.5
23	Gold Coast	117	103.4	13.6	63	61.0	2.0	99.5%	Win	54	42.3
24	Collingwood	57	60.1	−3.1	103	114.8	−11.8	0.1%	Loss	-46	−54.7

Thanks for this. I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I like the expected score stat. Sometimes the final score doesn’t tell the full story - for example you’ve got some teams winning games due to the opposition’s inaccuracy rather than the winning team’s general dominance.

Another example was GWS winning a bunch of games last year on unsustainable accuracy, only to lose both finals.

Not surprised we lost to North and Port (round 3) on expected score. We all left the North game that night feeling in a sour mood feeling as though we lost. The Port win at Adelaide Oval we couldn’t miss if we tried.

Surprised we lost to Essendon on excepted score. Felt like we were far the better team on the night, and did hold a 7 goal lead before Essendon’s junk time goals.

The Carlton game - Carlton had 6.0 by quarter time in the wet with many of their goals being from difficult areas. Had they of been 3.3 at quarter time, we likely win that game as we got better the night went on.

Lastly, the Dogs loss at Marvel could’ve been an absolute massacre based on X score.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,527]

1 hour ago, Vineytime said:

This may have been discussed here previously. 
 

2023 National Draft 

7. Caleb Windsor

10. Nate Caddy

Love Windsor and he will be very good. 
We missed one here though, Caddy & JVR would have been 👌👌👌

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. 

I don’t disagree with this.

The question you need to ask is whether a classy winger/half back flanker or a power forward that can partner up with JVR is more important to our list evolution.

[DemonOX 8,856]

On 04/03/2025 at 12:56, Adam The God said:

It's been clear for 3-4 seasons that the number one thing holding our list back is our ability to finish in front of goal.

Totally agree. It’s been a problem for years and still not fixed. VERY VERY FRUSTRATING. IMO we have left another premiership on the table because of it. 

MFC fix the bloody problem for the Lov of god. 

By the time its fixed we won’t have a midfield to supply it correctly. 

As i said above VERY FRUSTRATING 🤬. 

[Adam The God 30,705]

17 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Collingwood pushed really high but kept at least one defender (generally Moore but sometimes Quaynor and Murphy) back and would often get bailed out of 1 on 2 or 2 on 3 because they'd be sitting deep and have a clear run at the footy

So often we'd bomb it long to Moore and have a guy running free in the forward pocket.

Their pressure dropped just a smidge and teams started to find that spare guy last year.

Geelong are always staying at home. Brisbane fairly at home too. Both of those sides use kicking to make the ground big once they turn the ball over and slow suck up forwards and midfielders to chase down uncontested kicks. Then go forward in to open forwards lines by spacing their forwards out. I reckon with Hipwood/Morris and Neale/Cameron they've both started to hit leading CHF's in their ball movement too which is something that went way out of the game.

Skills are a factor, but neither Geelong nor Brisbane have amazingly skilled backlines. What both teams do have is midfields and forwards that are drilled like soccer teams and know how to move off the ball for each other to create spaces in the zones. Both teams as failed in finals for multiple years because they mucked around with the footy, weren't direct enough and would turn it over in high pressure moments.

A big question is whether our bash and crash big 3 mids are willing to add smart unrewarded off ball running to their games after they've had years of getting to the feet of the long down the line kick.

 

I think Chaplin is trying to add this and it will be more obvious on big grounds like the MCG. It may also take some time to get working.

I just rewatched the 1st and 3rd quarters against Geelong in Round 1 of 2018. Our forward runners and forward handball, our attacking half backs off the back of the centre square, and our quick ball movement from back to front (often aimed at a tall target deliberately spread wide of the corridor with numbers at the foot of the contest) is so exciting to watch.

We also leave ourselves a bit vulnerable going the other way, but when Geelong get fast breaks on us, our defenders push back hard, as do our mids, and then slingshot off it.

I think with our better defensive personnel (May and Petty), we could afford to play this way in 2025.

[greenwaves 515]

39 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

MFC fix the bloody problem for the Lov of god. 

I'm starting to think it's unfixable 

I don't read replies or reactions