Lord Nev

.

Turnovers.

Spot on. It was the planning involved in making us pay for turnovers and Longmire knowing we can be vulnerable on the rebound. Sydney had more turnovers than us, but they had clearly planned their game around it and made us pay.

Yeah I went back to edit the post but it was too late, already chucked up a post to correct the backline numbers. My mistake.

Just to add to this - too late to edit the post - I've either checked footywire too early or just looked at the wrong numbers, but Petty, Lever and Hibberd only had a couple of turnovers or so each, not the numbers above. Apologies.

It's not a defence of the 'bottom 6' players, again I didn't say any of them played well, but the impact those players generally have on our results is minor, the main impact on the game was the 70 points from turnovers, so yes, players with more turnovers fed into that factor. Melksham and ANB had more time and space? What game were you watching? That's completely off the mark. If you want to make the argument that stoppage players have more turnovers, which I agreed with in another post, then you need to compare that to normal: Brayshaw - 11 turnovers, season average 5.2 Viney - 9 turnovers, season average 5.3 Gawn - 7 turnovers, season average 4.3 The season average for our stoppage players is around the 5 mark, so yes, 9 turnovers and 11 turnovers is an unusually high number. You're missing the point of the turnovers - again, Sydney scored 70 POINTS from turnovers, if you want to talk about their turnovers then tell me how much we scored from turnovers? That's where the game was decided. Sydney actually had more turnovers than us, but the points from turnovers was the difference. With the backline players, I originally got my stats from footywire and they seem to have updated since my post, so you're correct there, they now have it as the numbers you've listed.

The thing I wonder about fitness wise this year is if we've maybe not got the balance right between resilience and recovery. We've clearly played players when they've had niggles, every team does to an extent, but could we have pushed it too far and ended up with it impacting our fitness at the pointy end of the season?

Within the context of this particular game, where the Swans scored 70 points from turnovers, of course the turnovers outweigh the 'other ways' players contributed. We lost due to scores from turnovers. And again, I'm not defending the performance of the "bottom 6", but they didn't cost us this game IMO. There's multiple factors surrounding the turnovers, and I'm not being critical of those players as a whole, but in this game turnovers are the biggest reason we lost. By far.

You expect turnovers to go up somewhat when playing midfield, but since moving there Gus averages almost twice as many as Viney and Oliver who are our number 1 and 2 for average turnovers for the year (Gus is 3rd for the year).

Everyone's going after ANB - he had 1 turnover from 14 disposals, that's 7%. Gus had 11 turnovers from 20 disposals, that's 55%.

Brayshaw - 11 turnovers Viney - 9 turnovers Gawn - 7 turnovers Petty - 7 turnovers Lever - 6 turnovers Hibberd - 6 turnovers Sparrow, ANB, Spargo and Melksham combined for 5 turnovers total. Sydney scored 70 points from turnovers. That's the game right there. Not saying those 4 played well by any stretch, but they're not the reason we lost.

To be clear, not saying everything else is perfect and that's the sole factor preventing us playing well. IMO there's a ton of issues of different sizes, I just think this is one of them.

For sure, every team would have some kind of niggles they carry through, I just think ours have been worse and more impactful to our performance than they were in 2021.

Disagree with this slightly. We've had a decent year with games lost to injury, but that's in part due to us playing players through existing niggles. IMO that has impacted our performance at times and was a factor in last night's loss as well (albeit not the main one).

Thanks mate! Appreciate you posting that. We did so much work on our points conceded from turnovers the last few years, but it feels like tweaks we've made to positions this year have brought it back somewhat.

Yeah, the match committee are not very 'innovative' hey? I wouldn't expect JVR to actually play, just what I would like to see.

I put last night's loss down to: - Swans having our measure. Their pressure was fantastic, we didn't cope. - Team selection. Been too stagnant this year, cost us last night. - Against an intense pressuring team; the niggles we're carrying were found out more. I'm not in the exact same camp as binman, my opinion is that we did the loading some time around the bye (but probably not during the bye) and that we were aiming to be 100% by round 23. I don't put our performance last night down to loading or not loading tbh. To add to the existing niggles, we also had Fritsch pre-game, Petracca during the game, and Spargo and Melksham also all 'injured' which IMO tipped the balance too far when combined with players like Gawn, Jackson, Brown, Hibberd, Salem and probably more already not 100%. In the end, it wasn't a shock loss, I'm not sure why many seem surprised.

4 great games? Averaging over 8 turnovers a game since gong into the middle (3 more than Viney and Oliver). His disposal is a liability in the middle.

Brown played 73% game time, he just didn't do anything.

OUT: Melksham, Rivers IN: JVR, Bowey And swap Gus and Harmes' roles, both were poor.

I didn't say Gus single-handedly cost us the game. Will be interested to see the scores from turnovers though, was a factor tonight. Also, we had more marks inside 50, yet they had twice as many tackles inside 50.