Bonkers

Pretty epic final 5 minutes of footy over in Adelaide. I'm not sure to be happy that Adelaide lost or disappointed Port Picked up points to clog up the ladder.

Today is not a replacement game.

I think you are right to a certain extent. It's easier to defend on smaller grounds as there is less space to exploit. Our system seems to work at the MCG sporadically, it's a bigger ground & when our work rate drops off just a bit, then it all seems to fall apart. When we are pressing up high on the G it is going to take more sustained effort than it would at Etihad to keep the game on our terms. There is only so long in a game you can keep that high intensity press before your players get tired. I'm hoping the club addresses this or finds a plan B because at the moment plan A isn't working for 4 quarters. I find it hard to see it working on the G for 4 quarters without more running type players in the side. This is why players like ANB will keep getting a game in this system.

Garlett is a down hill skier. He goes missing too much and can't be relied upon. It's hard to build a reliable team around unreliable players. I hope to see the club address this in the off season among our other list needs.

Yeh that's right. They were able to get more forward entries into dangerous spots where they could capitalise. A lot of our forward entries weren't that dangerous due to our skill level or positioning of our small forwards and our players being outnumbered. They were able to get cheap goals because they got numbers to the fall of the ball when they moved it forward as well as the pressure they applied. They outnumbered us at opportune times and hit hard on the break into open space. It's not rocket science what they do really, it's simple footy that makes sense and is paying dividends for them. I think I counted at least 4 goals that came from balls that were crumbed from a contest, a couple were directly from a spoil or one of our players coughing the ball up due to pressure. The little things make a difference over a whole game of footy and it cost us big time last night.

Overall I was not upset about the effort last night, the effort was there from most of the players and we had periods in the game where we were well on top. If we'd converted those opportunities it would have been a much closer game on the scoredboard. Who knows maybe it would have given us the confidence to roll them. The problem is that we don't capitalise on our effort and when we are winning the contest. I've been saying it for a long time the ball movement and attacking set up is inefficient. The other main issue with our game plan is that scoring heavily/easily now in the AFL is predominantly about finding space. To find space you need players willing to run hard and fast on the counter attack and take the game on. We don't have those type of players so we pose little threat to teams when they set up defensively against us. We are very easy to defend against because we can't exploit teams on the spread or run to get the ball past a congested area / zone. Where as the opponents find it easy to exploit us in transition, this is a double edged sword. We have too many players of the same type and probably too many players outside of our top 12 players whose skill and running ability or willingness to work hard just does not seem to be there. Maybe that is an over exaggeration about willingness to work but we don't have enough speed or hard runners. I'm amazed at the ease at which other teams are able to transition the ball against us. It is tiring to watch when it happens repeatedly each week. Meanwhile we can barely manage to move the ball out of our back 50 and consistently choose to kick to a contest down the line over and over again. It's dumb footy. The club has assembled a list with a good spine. Admittedly I think I was wrong about OMac, he has come good. He still has brain farts occasionally but overall he is developing well. The other parts of the spine are looking good with Lever, Gawn, Hogan & TMac. We have developing talls in Weid and Petty who I have high hopes for. The starting midfield of Viney, Oliver and Petracca will serve us well for a decade. What I am concerned about is the lack of genuine hard running wingers and flankers on the list at the moment. This is what we are lacking. But I have hope that we can get this right. We have built the list around contested footy which I think is the right thing, from the contest out. So next in my opinion is for the club to focus on finding some genuine hard running skilled players who are hard workers and will complement our inside grunt. For mine the difference last night was Richmond had a couple of better distributors, more pace and run on the outside as well as more efficiency in attack. Their efficiency in attack was probably partly to do with having a tried and true method to move the ball forward and confidence in that method. Richmonds attacking players were also willing to run hard/contest and they weren't relying on anyone in particular. They all filled their role and capitalised on the loose balls when present to them, overall their forward players are faster more skilled and hard working than ours. In comparison our structure forward of the ball is a bit of a shambles at the moment and it seems we don't have the forward players to play the game style Goodwin is attempting at the moment.

Seems like a F#%@wit.

I don't mind the ins. Fritsch is a bit stiff to be dropped or rested but in saying that he was just ok against the Hawks so for the sake of team balance I don't mind that change. Weideman is an interesting one, with Hogan playing well up the ground we lacked a target man last week against Hawthorn. We can't really afford to let Rance play unaccountable so I think if anything Weideman will be important to give Rance and Astbury a contest. With Vlastuin out that then puts a lot more pressure on their other players to distribute out of the backline.

You raise a good point. If we were mentally stronger we probably play finals last year, we wouldn't have dropped that Rd23 game. We couldn't go with the Hawks for the whole game today after having them on the rack early. To me that indicates we are capable of beating them. That fade out can't just be down to game plan, some of it has to be mental application and lack of belief after the Hawks gained momentum. It seems this team is yet to believe or they doubt when it gets tough at times.

We win enough of the ball and our structures were ok for 1.5 qtrs today. But we are inefficient moving the ball forward. We are getting more of the ball and more inside 50s most weeks yet fail to do anything with them. Some are saying we are a good team/ have good players but I beg to differ. We have some good players but a lot of our players skills under pressure are ordinary and or theyre getting coached to bomb the ball vs hitting up a target. Our spread / running was non existent today after the 1st qtr. Is that laziness I'm not sure? Defensively our structure has massive holes in it due to our running and positional set up. We get scored on too easily whilst at the other end we are fighting for every score. The game plan is inefficient and it relies on us winning the clearances. We aren't that good around the ground using space. Clarkson pulled our game plan apart in this area. For the latter part of the game it looked like they were feeding off Max Gawns taps as well. Most supporters can see it unfolding in front of us. If the coaches don't make changes I can't see us playing finals. Hopefully this is a lesson for Goodwin.

It was interesting to hear Dermies thoughts on this game (something you can't always say about Derm). He was pretty confident that the hawks can knock us off if their young backline holds up. I wasn't really aware they're that young as they have Frawley and Sicily who is relatively experienced. But if that is the case that they're young/inexperienced let's hope that's an area the coaching staff have reviewed and can try and exploit.

Sounds like a great day for Weideman and Balic. Two players who are a different type to who we have in the 1sts ar the moment and could develop into handy AFL players. They would add a lot to our team if they keep developing.

We rely on our contested ball/inside ball winning and pressure to keep the game in our favour. There are a lot of calls for Pederson or Weideman but I'd rather keep the small line up. I think part of the reason Pederson is out is due to his lack of speed which can leave us even more exposed in transition or when trying to lock the ball inside 50. He's been average in the Ruck and around the ground also. If Tom McDonald was available I'd probably change the opinion of bringing in another tall as I think he brings more to the team, but Weideman and Pederson don't bring enough for mine at the moment. Like you said our game is channelling the Tigers almost and there's nothing wrong with that. It's playing to our strength and as the Tigers showed in the GF it can nullify a more skilful and or quicker team when you get the game on your own terms. The problem is when a team like the Hawks who are very skilful and relatively quick can manage to match that intensity around the contest. Our inside mids will be really important next week.

Of course, I think almost everyone sees it. Sign of getting old I think. He will still leave a gaping hole when he hangs up the boots though. Unfortunately he is probably the best player at the club in terms of waiting for an option to open up before disposing of the ball and he almost always hits a target with his kicking. We could do with a few more players that are composed with the ball in hand that don't blaze away.

I think you are onto something there DA. We will play a back 7 with Lever playing as the loose man. Then play with one player short in the forward line with occasional stints of Max Gawn resting forward and Hogan pushing into the midfield. It will leave us short of one tall forward obviously but they are trying to put a bit of extra leg speed into the forward line and midfield by bringing in Kent. Hopefully this will result in greater pressure across the forward half proving they can defend well as a team.

It was a bit of a roller coaster ride again. There are elements of our game that are very good and when the game is on our terms we are capable of beating any team. On the other hand it seems we are switching off defensively at stoppages and allowing teams to run off us outside the clearance. I believe that this is happening partly due to running our players off the back of the square and hitting the inside contest but leaving the outside of the contest open for the oppenent to control the outside space. The other issue is Lever. He's a 3rd man up tall defender and that can add a lot to our attacking game. Having him to try hold down a key tall is taking away from his game as well as leaving us open defensively. Someone also mentioned we are a slow running team, I think there is truth to this and we might have to look to address this to give some balance to the side. Would love to hear some theories from others about how Goodwin can prevent teams getting a run on us. Apart from that part of our game we are looking good.

Personally I think the game style is out of balance with the players we have at our disposal. Currently it's really inefficient going forward unless we are going to have more forwards that run and chase harder to lock the ball in harder than Garlett, Fritch and Hannan. Richmonds game style works when they bomb it forward because they've got 6 forwards that will work there backsides off to lock it in. We don't have that so we can't afford to bomb the ball in the way we are at the moment and turn it over. We can go toe to toe with any team when it comes to attack on the footy. But and it's a big but we don't have the players to run into space and hit up targets that expose teams the way we get exposed going the other way. That's probably our biggest weakness at the moment that we lack polish when moving the ball by foot. When we score it seems like it's a lot of hard work, in comparison the opposition scores very easily. Perhaps we have to look at locking the game down a bit and playing stoppage footy a bit like the old Paul Roos style of football to stem the tide in games when we are off balance like the first half yesterday.

You make some good points. Leadership and direction starts from the board and executive level. Things like this don't usually happen unless something else stinks in other parts of an organisation. Warner and Lehman I've never been particularly sold on as leadership figures. Those decisions to put these leaders in place have been endorsed by higher up. The thing is Cricket Australia just had a review a couple of years ago so it doesn't fill me with much hope that the right decisions will be made for the ongoing good of the game in Australia.

Smith has been playing cricket his whole life and should know better. I find it hard to shift blame, but you are right that there needs to be a shift in the culture.

Well we don't know how much of a collective it was whether it was Smith, Warner and Bancroft or whether it was more than that. It'd be even worse if there were more involved than those 3 as we then have a systemic problem and pretty much no worthy leadership in the team. Smith has to be stripped of the captaincy and at least face a ban. Bancroft whilst he is stupid is not as culpable as smith IMO. I also wonder whether Lehman is involved in this. He will be leaving as coach after the next ashes anyway so won't be a huge loss if he's implicated. Looks like a time of change in leadership & direction whatever way you look at it.

As a CEO what can you really say? He has to go through due process and then hand down findings. He basically said he wasn't happy about what happened and was shocked. He can't go and shoot from the hip, if he does that just makes the sutuation worse. I'm neither here nor there about his leadership but he's between a rock and a hard place on this one. Don't envy him being in this position.

Tom Mitchell 54 disposals. Great to see Buckley put a hard tag on him to try and limit his impact.

Watching on tv I thought that the kicking inside 50 that quarter was just long bombs mostly to the top of the square. Either the forwards weren't leading to space, players kicking the ball I50 weren't looking for shorter options or both. It looked like lazy careless football to me. Others have commented we had our 3rd string midfield at centre bounces, but I think if the delivery was more effiecient we could have matched the saints that qtr. In the final quarter they moved the ball a lot better and lowered their eyes to hit up shorter targets.

Not sure if that's a reality ? Blokes been a loose cannon for the past 15 years wherever he's gone. Hopefully it works out for him though.

Lexus are the luxury division of Toyota. In terms of size of the sponsor that's a pretty big company/brand, it doesn't really get much bigger globally than Toyota. Congrats to the club if true.