Dr. Gonzo

Not only that but I don't think it would have mattered if we had H/Pedersen/Frost/Grimes/whoever in place of OMac/Garland/Hunt/Wagner on Saturday because the ball was rebounding out of our forward half too quickly under no pressure. Personnel changes in defense wouldn't have altered this - what may have is pressure from Garlett, Kent, Kennedy, Harmes etc to stop the ball coming out of our forward line so quickly.

You say the improvement in the middle and forward half can be easily seen but the back half is a mess. The back half looks like a mess when the middle and forward half don't do their job. It's harder to see that on TV but trust me that's what's happening.

Lumumba would be in but I think he's sitting out with concussion. I agree we need some experience, I don't know why Dunn isn't in. But even with he or Lumumba in to replace OMac it won't change the fact that we are falling down across half forward and midfield which allows the opposition to get the ball down quickly and score. You can change personnel or gamestyle but unless we decide to flood back it won't make a difference.

I assume our "future" back 6 would be seen as Jetta TMac Hunt Wagner OMac Salem Just look at how inexperienced they are.

Really? I don't think I need to answer this.

Agreed and I would never wrote off the Hawks. I haven't looked at them in enough detail but over the last fortnight I've seen it mentioned that they've barely won "contested possessions" since late last year (round 17 or so). Part of what makes them so good is confidence in their ability to win and their confidence in each other to play to their structures/gameplan. They've had 3 close calls so far this year and we're pretty well beaten by the Cats, Giant and Swans. Of course as you say never write them off but I think they're starting to wane a little. Maybe not out of premiership contention but certainly not the powerhouse they have been.

When the ball is coming out of our forward half at lightning pace because the half forwards and mids are not applying enough pressure, creating turnovers with poor disposal and losing the contested footy our backs have no hope. Maybe they should be playing a little tighter but even going man on man you will struggle to stop pinpoint delivery if it is coming down to an open forward line at speed with little to no pressure.

I think you may be underestimating a couple of those teams (North, Bullies & Port) and overestimating the Hawks. They haven't been anywhere near the team of the last few years this year and escaped with lucky wins on no less than 3 occasions. The Saints almost (should have) beat the Hawks down in Tassie so how good are they really? The thing is in footy teams don't always win or lose games they should otherwise we wouldn't bother actually playing the games. And like the Saints we are a young team who will vary in consistency throughout the year. Although the plots will look sporadic on the graph week by week, the long term trend I am confident is going up.

The problem isn't with our backline - when we've lost its our midfield and half forwards that are the problem.

Just signed a 3 year contract.....

This is the contention - I don't think being below average/median makes us "sub-AFL standard" - I take sub-AFL standard to mean below the level required to compete in the AFL. No one is arguing we can't do better but we are definitely doing well enough to compete.

Maybe wait and see before throwing your hands in the air - you may be pleasantly surprised. I was after the Essendon loss.

They're probably too worried about figuring out what they're meant to be doing without having to worry about sorting everyone else out, which is why I think with experience and tweaking we will see it improve.

Also compare that to previous years when our poor disposal saw us create turnovers across half back. I guess turning it over across half forward while not ideal should theoretically give us a better chance to defend downfield before the opposition gets within scoring range.

Point is our "strength of schedule" to this point has been relatively easy. The next month will be a huge test to see how we perform against some of the better and more senior sides.

No, I was using it to show where we ranked defensively. I merely commented that offensively it showed we were doing quite well. SWYL said we were sub-AFL standard - I don't take that to mean we are in the bottom half or quartile or whatever of teams but that we are far worse off than the rest of the competition (eg where we were at in 2013). The only real outliers on that graph that you could argue are close to being sub-AFL standard are Carlton, Freo, Essendon, GC & Brisbane. The rest fall within a variable range and while not dominating the competition are certainly performing to AFL standard.

The plan is to stop or at the very least slow the opposition ball movement coming out of our forward line. Pinging from one end of the ground to the other in <10 seconds won't allow us to defend even if we do go man on man. The problem is with the pressure across half forward and the midfield. Even if the opposition are allowed to move it out of our forward line we should be holding them up on the mark to allow time to get back and defend. This requires a high workrate which we didn't exhibit on the weekend and hence got exposed out the back.

The graph is poduced by Champion Data to show where teams rank in regards to the "premiership standard" (100 pts for, 86 pts against). Also known as the 186 graph which will send shivers down some spines here We are below premiership standard defensively but we are not "sub-AFL standard" defensively. Of course the premiership is the aim but you have to be realistic too. We are not winning the flag this year and so where we have come from we are doing pretty well all things considered. Could we be doing better? Of course. But we are not sub-AFL standard defensively, if we were we would be plotted on the far right of the graph where Brisbane and Gold Coast are.

10 rounds into a new game plan while blooding a number of kids (Petracca, Oliver, Hunt, Wagner as well as Harmes, Stretch and OMac who played a handful of games each last year) and incorporating two new guys in Bugg and Kennedy. That's a large chunk of the team that should have natural development as they grow personally and as a group.

He said we were sub-AFL standard. We may be sub-premiership standard (which is the point of the graph) but we are not sub-AFL standard like we were in 2013.

The diamond as far as I can tell is only used as a starting setup from Centre bounces to allow two flankers to push into the midfield and get extra numbers around the contest (+2). It is not (as far as i cancan tell) the nature of our defensive structure when the opposition has the ball coming from our forward line, only a starting setup from centre bounces. I don't mean to come off like I'm attacking anyone Rusty, I just struggle in communicating these concepts sometimes that I've had little experience with.

That does seem like a structural problem however that should mean we outnumber them 18 v 16 in our forward half. If we apply enough pressure to them and lock the ball in our forward line then they wouldn't be able to cheat out the back and we win. We dominated the first quarter and wasted too many opportunities. Kick 5 or 6 goals in the first quarter which we probably should have and they don't get the luxury of 2 or 3 loose men out the back. Which personnel changes do you think would have seen us win the game on the weekend?

If you average over 3 years you'll still have a tanking problem - it might even be worse! Take us in 2007-2009. We wouldn't have got the picks we needed in 2007 or 2008 and would have still had incentive to tank in 2009. Whatever system you have where top draft picks are given to the worst performers you'll always have incentive to tank. Look ta the NBA, they have a draft lottery and teams still tank sometimes entire seasons just to have a better chance at a top 3 pick.

Do it and making it work are two different things. When you do it you want it to be like clockwork. Otherwise you'll end up worse off than you would've been if you just stuck to your original structures.

Things can be tweaked by the runner and at breaks but you said you wanted us to "change it in an instant" - that's just unrealistic considering the group we've got.