stevethemanjordan

My take - - Many supporters here think we conceded goals due to the defensive zone we play. Which is not true. If you're playing a zone defence, the entire zone press hard up the field on the offensive. It's a risk vs reward situation and is the way that modern teams are trending. It requires quick play-on and a high level of execution of skill under pressure (which clearly was the reason it came so unstuck last night). There are only two things that will penetrate a zone defence: 1) Sam Mitchell and Shannon Hurn 2) If your team-mate makes a direct turnover. Last night, we turned the ball over far far too often which resulted in coast to coast goals. That's what will happen to a zone defence if you can't execute under pressure. - Whilst I'm not entirely opposed to this zone defence, I will say a couple of things that I definitely don't like. One is that it means nobody but the (turneroverer) is held accountable for key forwards like Josh Kennedy being able to literally maul us. Honestly, I don't understand why within our defensive zone, Tom McDonald isn't closest to Josh Kennedy as clearly he is the best chance of negating the guy on a turnover. Having a bloke 10 cm shorter try and make defensive spoil against a key forward is an extremely frustrating outcome of breakdown in zone defence. If either of or key defenders were made to be more aware of Kennedy's positioning, perhaps he would have had a little less impact? - Tom McDonald and Oscar McDonald. I called it before the match, but if and when we have games where our efficiency is down and we are butchering it going forward, these two are going to cop it massively when we play taller sides like West Coast. I've said our key defensive stocks are weak and last night proved so. Many of the goals were unstoppable, but these two are incredibly inconsistent in their play. Whether it's decision making, skill execution, killing a ball in a contest, clean ball handling. It's basically a lucky dip in my eyes. A real lack of composure. You guys can point out the nice couple of contested marks that Tom made. But then I'll point out the mistakes he made and we've basically gone nowhere. Compare those two to Hurn, McKenzie and McGovern in regards to what to do when you have the ball or when it's in dispute. Worlds apart. Its our weakest link along with skill execution throughout our side. - Our lack of goals had nothing to do with not having a true small forward. Unless you think kicking on the heads of forwards is the way AFL is played these days. - Positives for me were obviously Oliver. I thought Garland played at a level that makes him at least look like he can play AFL footy. Couple of mistakes, but mostly had options to kick to which he used. Pressure around the ball and tackling again was there/consistent. But that's about it as far as positives go. Way too many players performed well under their best and used it really poorly. Which is worrying. - Play like that against St Kilda and it'll be 2016 deja vu.

Lols at those who think the problem is a 'small forward'. Execution under pressure. That is the difference between teams tonight.

Weird. Really weird.

Will be an interesting game. West Coast have quite a few talls in their side, especially their backline so I'll watch for smart and purposeful forward entries from our mids. And whoever plays on Kennedy will be given a good test. No injuries please. None.

Yeh he always tears us apart. Both him and Roo. If anything, this game should give supporters an insight into Goodwin's tactical ability as a coach. Matchups and team/individual planning and execution will play a big part if we're to win. We can't beat them at etihad if it's a shootout between teams.

My post had nothing to do with whether or not Frawley would strengthen our side. It was that far too many supporters on here like to live in the past in regards to the form of a player. Whether it is one year of great form or in ANB's case, one game where he kicked a few goals as a HF. Supporters hold onto that and speak as if that player is still replicating that output in the present, when they're not. It's a classic demonland thing.

I'm not sure about meaningless, but yeh, the scoreline gives the Saints an enormous pump-up. Still reckon we won't be able to control their talls. It's already scripted in my mind. We'll concede far too many easy from a lack of quality talls in our defence and our mids will struggle with efficiency entering our forward-line. This is providing our mids break even with theirs. Everything will have to go right for us to win. Can't see it happening. I think Tom and Oscar will prove to be our weakest link this year. I still believe Oscar should be playing VFL and at another club with better depth, he would be.

Agree. One game against Geelong where he happened to get on the end of a few seems to convince many that he's a great small forward. And I'm sure it'll be referenced for the next five years. Just like Gysberts. And Jamar's 2010 AA year. And Frawley's. Etc... Etc Etc... zzzzz.....

They'll come down after today's thumping. We dropped slightly last week when we beat Carlton too. In other news, I just saw Dunn take a defensive mark, give an unnecessary handball to Howe who was hardly in a better position and he basically popped up a handball that was way too high and put his team mate under immense pressure and the result? Goal to Freo. Both so average.

Clarry is an extractor and his vision and peripheral awareness reminds me of Mitchell's. He nearly always gives a release handball to the player in most space every time. The fact he possesses that sense of calmness and composure at his age is phenomenal. Petracca is similar when he has the ball in close. Clarry can handball all he likes, it's always to the advantage of his teammates.

lols

And what is it, if you'll be so kind?

Yes. And if we had the depth of list, coaching set-up, standards and 'culture' (*shudder*) back then that we do today, he would have been made to learn a lot earlier how to operate at AFL level. Whilst it was understandably frustrating that Watts greatly lacked the required level of intensity, purpose and physicality to play at AFL level from the day he walked in, it was equally just as frustrating that the club continued to play him early days, completely neglecting these obvious traits that have troubled him throughout his career and clearly still do today. Goody and the coaches are just doing exactly what should have been done from the day he walked through the door. Disappointing on both parts. Hopefully we'll see a hungrier Jack Watts come round 1.

Fair reasoning. I get the impression that the Bont isn't the type who will start slow though.

Brayshaw is like a Fyfe/Pendles/Ablett/Dangerwood/Judd clone but with like heappps more upside and way betterer. Frankly I think he's underrated.

Because of their JLT ladder position ? This is what I mean....

I am the fun police.

Maybe stating the obvious, but I'm sure he means the 'physically toughest' rather than the toughest/best midfield in the AFL.

Only on demonland would there be a live ladder for the JLT series... Makes me cringe all sorts.

I think Garlo was born to be a footy historian, special comments man or perhaps part of the media team at a club. The thread poll gives a clear indication that most feel sorry for what he's 'been through' which in my opinion has always been a whole lot of fluff and has always explained why supporters have developed a soft spot for him and have defended him. Especially when he says things like, "Success wouldn't mean anything to me unless it was with Melbourne". Romantic and sweet, but really, he was hardly a driving force of light during those dark years and if anything, he displayed defeatist body language on many occasions. Unlike Nathan Jones. And that's the difference. Garlo has never possessed a killer instinct quality to his game which has contributed to his defeatist attitude at times and is a reason why he hasn't come out the other side like Jones has successfully been able to do. Nice guy, average player. The fact he can't get a look in should be music to supporters ears as far as I'm concerned. It means we've improved our list. Not sure why anyone would want the alternative.

Perhaps. We'll see.

But I feel as though we'll have to comprehensively beat them through the midfield to negate the threat of their talls. And their midfield is pretty solid. Last year's two losses have me feeling vulnerable. How's about this for a far-out/horses for courses kind of scenario: A ruck duo of Gawn/Spencer with Gawn going forward when Spencer is in the middle allowing a forward-line of Gawn, Weed and Watts. Hogan to go head to head with Riewoldt all day. T Mac to Bruce, O Mac to McCartin and Hibberd to Membrey. Crazy [censored]?

I keep thinking about Round 1 and how we're going to contain all of Riewoldt, Bruce, McCartin and Membrey. Really, I think going in with Oscar and Tom as our only two talls in the backline has the potential to be disastrous.

Viney was just lol-ing at Murphy after he did it. Lol-ing right in his face.

Agree with all the positives you've listed. I've never knocked him for his defensive attributes, (as far as I can remember).. However, view the Jack Watts situation and you'll see that a similar theory would apply if we had better depth in our KD stocks. Maybe his spot wouldn't be under 'serious' pressure long term, but players are dropped all the time for a multitude of reasons and perhaps T-Mac would receive a shock omission for not playing to a the level that is required of him? Perhaps it'd kick his concentration levels into gear and he'd be made more aware of the fact that he simply can't take off with the ball whenever he likes nor seek a target that is a low percentage hit. Similar to Garland and Dunn etc over the years. Different reasons, but my point stands.