Akum

What really bothers me is that I clearly remember the feeling at this time in the 2010 season. We had improved earlier in the season, we had what looked like a very promising young team, we put up a few "good performances" against pretender teams (though we still couldn't beat any, except for a day out against the Swans) and a few shockers against sides we should have beaten. But we were OK about it because, well, we looked so good for next season, we had so much bloody "potential". Everything was going to be fine. Then, as we know, it all turned to excrement in 2011. So this was a real "late 2010" game. The way we wrote the 'script back in 2010 is that we'll lose badly to the teams we should beat (Suns & Blues), and we'll "perform well" but still lose to the pretender teams Port & Geelong. And "better performance" against pretender teams definitely doesn't mean that it'll all come together next year. Not by a long shot. We've just got it all to do again.

What's the bet that comes out again before very long? The AFL Integrity Dept won't let it stand. It's called bringing the game into disrepute!

So here we go. We dominate the game, then give them 6 of the last 7 goals and it's an easy win to them.

No. At the time it was generally considered that they outplayed us but couldn't get the score on the board & we were lucky to win. They also improved a whole lot over the next few games and played a lot better than they did against us. GWS are very good now, they weren't so hot then. The GWS win didn't have nearly the same impact as Geelong last season. So no, we haven't beaten anyone of note. Unless you see falling over the line against an inaccurate team who generally outplayed us as somehow adding something important to this season. Agree, by the way, with all the posters saying we get sucked into the contest. This applies to contested ball, to tackles and to pack marks - on each of these types of occasions we have three against one going for the ball, with two opponents free.

... think that perhaps we might be making some sort of progress. If we don't win a game like this one (or Hawks, Port or Geelong), the season is like a bag of hot air.

I'd prefer we just work out how to get the ball to him competently so to give him half a chance against one (not three) opponents. Or we unearth another two or three players from within or without who can deliver the ball to him as well as Jack Watts. Each to his own, I guess. Blowing everything to smithereens has always helped in the past, hasn't it?

No, it's not a "plan b" - as in a totally different game plan that we switch to at some point in the game - that we need. But we do need to be able to tweak our existing game plan to meet certain challenges that arise. For example, we smash other team in first quarter with lightning fast attacks running it thru the corridor. Other team then closes it down. It's useless to keep trying to run it through an increasingly congested corridor, or trying to hit teammates in places that are tighter & tighter in said corridor. We sure to lose unless we have other ways to move the ball forward when the corridor is shut. Another example: other team nullifies Gawn at stoppages (legally or otherwise). Mids aren't getting his hitouts to advantage, so we're struggling to get clean possession at stoppages & clearances, which we really need to do because we suck at creating chains of uncontested possessions. It's useless to just keep on trying to do what's not going to work and battle away trying to crash through every pack at stoppages. And it's certainly no use just bring in other players to the stoppages in the hope that they'll find a way through when our top mids haven't. We're sure to lose unless our mids have another strategy that they can decide, as a unit, to use if we can't get clean ball away from stoppages. We need to work out where our game plan is most vulnerable, and work out a solid response to put into action if our opponent opens up that vulnerability. Just simple old-fashioned risk management. Or else we'll never do better than 10th or 11th for the next few years.

Both good points. The other point is that Mitchell, Hodge & Sewell are unbelievably good at bringing teammates around them into the game, and at converting contested ball into uncontested ball. We have no one remotely like that yet.

I agree with this. On the other hand, we haven't beaten anyone of note. We have 4 of our remaining games against teams in the 8. We've been beaten against teams below us that have "hunted" us - that have done their homework and worked out how to put a spanner in our works. We have games to come against GCS & Carlton - teams below us who will do their homework against us, who will nullify Gawn & Viney & Hogan, will close up the corridor and try to run us off our feet by going wide. If we don't win a game in each category, then all we've done is get back to 2010. Young team that at times have looked really exciting, but who have only potential to show for it, not results (at least in 2010 we smashed a top 4 team in the Swans). We've improved our performance but not our results, and to get any better results, we'll have to improve our performance at least as much again from this year to next year as we did fem last year to this year. We all know what happened the first time around after 2010. At least this time we've got PJ.

ANB's problem is that he tears it up as No.1 mid for the Scorps, then when he gets promoted, has to play HFF. In games where we get smashed, HFF is a real graveyard - all the traffic is the other way except for the odd scrappy kick which is easily picked off by the defence. So he has no effect on the game and he gets dropped. He never gets the chance to prove himself as a mid at AFL level. The same applies to all our Scorps mids that get promoted.

Seriously? Richardson sure gave his side plenty of help after 1/4 time. Showed them exactly what they needed to do to win the game. See, other coaches do it.

I see what you mean, and there's been a massive turnover of our "older" players, which will probably be completed this year. But we're going to have to get used to the idea that our "older" players are now a different group to what they were. Our "older" players in yesterday's game were Vince & Jones, and then Garlett, Watts & Jetta, who are all best 22 (and Grimes & Matt Jones, who aren't). After that, we get down amongst Gawn & Viney & T-Mac. We have only maybe half a dozen best-22 who are older than Gawn. That's how far our "older" players have been turned over.

I see what you mean, and there's been a massive turnover of our "older" players, which will probably be completed this year. But we're going to have to get used to the idea that our "older" players are now a different group to what they were. Our "older" players in yesterday's game were Vince & Jones, and then Garlett, Watts & Jetta, who are all best 22 (and Grimes & Matt Jones, who aren't). After that, we get down amongst Gawn & Viney & T-Mac. We have only maybe half a dozen best-22 who are older than Gawn. That's how far our "older" players have been turned over.

You may be right; I hope so. Like I say, if in the rest of the season we get either a win against a good side, or a win against an ordinary side that shuts us do0wn (and Carlton will, make no mistake), then I'd feel a lot more confident about us being able to work out the contingency issues for next year. One way or the other, it's what we need to make the next step. From my Western Bulldogs contacts, I thought Craig Jennings might be the guy, but now I'm not so sure.

Yep, totally agree. Roos & Jackson have been absolutely huge for this club. Because they've already done the massive changes needed, now all we need are the right sort of intelligent tweaks. We don't need a whole Plan B so much as a contingency plan - "if this happens, we try x, y or z". We need to plan for where we're most vulnerable. But it's looking to me increasingly like we don't currently have those skills on our coaching panel, so we may need to buy them in from God knows where when Roos finishes.

Agree, especially the bolded part. When our game plan is successfully tied up, the players do try harder, but trying harder has no effect, and can even make it worse. They get perplexed & indecisive, which, if the other coach senses it (and this would be what they're looking for), they apply even more pressure and move in for the kill. When you're tied up, it's no use struggling against the ropes. You've got to figure out another way out.

Sorry to be repetitive, but as a team we have only 2 "tricks" - (1) stoppages (thanks largely to Gawn), and (2) fast attacks through the corridor. We do have potentially dangerous forwards, but if (1) & (2) don't work, it makes it impossible for our forwards. If any team counters our only two "tricks", we will ALWAYS lose, even to lousy teams like Essendon & St Kilda. So what I'd like to see is for us to beat a team - any team, don't care who they are - that successfully counters our two "tricks". If this doesn't change, the best we can hope for is 10th for the next few years.

I think everybody - including the coaches - forget that every week we play against another team who are hell-bent on stopping us from executing our game plan. Which is mainly (a) winning stoppages, and (b) fast attacks through the corridor. We're going to play a lot of teams who will actually succeed in stopping us executing our game plan. They do this by (a) nullifying Gawn & Viney & Jones; (b) closing up the corridor, so if we keep trying to attack through the corridor, we get burned. Again and again and again ... It's a great game plan when it works, but it's actually not a difficult game plan for a well-drilled team with the right tools (e.g. Hickey to nullify Gawn; Armitage to nullify Viney or Jones) to counter. It's not a fail-safe game plan. No game plan is. It's only the top few teams who, when their game plan is successfully countered, find another way of getting the job done. So it's not a matter of the players "failing to execute" a fail-safe game plan. It's a matter of the game plan being successfully countered by the other coach. The stupidity is when we play teams like St. Kilda - who aren't great but who have the tools & knowhow to counter our game plan - we play right into their hands by trying to do the same thing, in some sort of belief that if we can just do it better, we'll get a different result than the last several times. If we can't work out what to do when our game plan is countered, we'll continue to be a 10-12 placed team. And the comments about "we don't have a Dangerfield" seem to indicate that we actually don't have another way of getting the job done. St. Kilda don't have a Dangerfield either; what they do have is a well-drilled team where everyone knows what they need to do.

OK, but he'd had 2 kicks & 7 handballs up to 1/2 time. Got most of his disposals in last qtr. I thought he looked as if he was injured to start with, but if so, he shouldn't have played.

The trouble with such a RIGID zone defence is that it allows half-intelligent forwards (and Riewoldt i& Membery are no more than half-intelligent) to choose which defender's zone they lead towards. Seems a strange theory that defenders are supposed to zone when their opponents have the ball, while forwards are supposed to man-up to create forward pressure.

I think there's a good chance that after playing us, they'll think they're a whole lot better than they actually are and wonder why they get smashed in every other game this season. Do they play Brisbane?

They just use an AFL form of "rope-a-dope" to beat us. Every time. Ball lands between 3 players from each side. The 3 Dees all try to pounce on the ball. One Saint goes for the ball, the other 2 go to the outside. If a Dee gets first hands, he is too close to his flatfooted teammates to be able to get clear of the contest, and the two Saints on the outside just close in if a Dee does look like breaking clear. If the Saint gets first hands, he immediately flicks it clear of the contest to where one of his teammates cruising past can accelerate into the open with the other teammate running in support alongside him. They're 30 metres away by the time the 3 Dees pick themselves up. Same happens with 3 or more Dees getting sucked into the tackle. They expected that we would keep trying the slingshot through the corridor and we were determined not to let them down the whole game. We don't seem to be able to move the ball forward any other way. They just simply closed down the space through the corridor. And when we turned it over, this also meant that they had much more space out wide to run into. And when they got it wide, we were always in real danger further up the field. Yet there was never any apparent urgency to run back hard and get out wide to cover their chain of spare men. We were content to just jog alongside them & keep them out wide, and before we realised it, they had put together 3 uncontested possessions and an uncontested mark inside 50. Exactly the same as Round 6. Exactly the same as last year. Rope-a-dope. Yet we never see it coming, like every other side does. And don't give me this "Saints are just a better side than us" crapola. These are the names of some of their "stars" who made us look stupid today: Membrey, Ross, Weller, Dunstan, Billings, Newnes, Roberton, Geary, Acres, Minchington, Gresham, Jack Sinclair, Daniel Mackenzie, Nathan Wright. That's two thirds of a side of absolute plodders. We made them look like top-four material, because they were so much better as a combination. We played like 22 individuals after 1/4 time, because of "rope-a-dope". There was no one on the field or in the box who saw the need to do anything different. Oh, and we don't seem to have anybody who can hit an accurate bullet handpass over more than about 5 metres. Over 10 metres and we have to "loop" the handball. But that's another story.

How many times can I "like" this?

True, but they simply know how to close us up. And once they close us up, we're just as perplexed about what to do next as we were in the Neeld era. We just don't know what to do, on the field or in the box. That's the big thing holding us back. Individually we're a 10 goals better team, but by playing a team game they make us look stupid.

If teams let us play the corridor, we look great. If they close up the corridor, we have very few other ways of moving the ball forwards. And we get smashed by teams that have a system at stoppages and can tie up our Auskick British Bulldogs tactics.