binman

The down the ground shot, ideally from high up in the stand, is the one they need to use more as it gives you the bets look at where every one is ahead of the ball. It is why i sit in the Posnford stand at the g.

Could not agree more. Its not just the frustrating camera angles, though that is annoying. The lack of explanation about tactics, positioning etc etc is infuriating. I mean what are their so called special comments people paid to do?

Agree on both points. Inexcusable someone didn't gut run to space to provide an option. In addition to giving him the option of passing it to that player it might have dragged players away from the fritter contest or from the other side giving him a chance to cross to a free player there. Also why didn't some of our bigger players gut run to the fritter contest given that was the most likely spot Lever was gong to kick it and there was time to do so? And we were totally lucky we won that ball. The blues stuffed up not doing so as they the numerical advantage and couldn't take clean possessions. Once they failed to win that ball it was game over

Fair question. I heard Hunt say it post match, when he said the following: “I think they got one extra back which we didn’t deal with as best as we could, and we sort of just made some crucial mistakes, especially going forward. I guess that is not completely proof, given he says i think but i thought i heard another player say it too (may maybe?).

Perhaps if you were 97% less obtuse people will understand what it is you are actually trying to say. I think you will find being 97% less condescending might help too (i mean 'Sad really that it's taken till Dee Z to understand what the thread was about'- really?). Take some ownership of that.

Some really good points. Our fast ball movement and pressure gave us all the momentum. I think we had 8 or so inside 50s before their first. At quarter time Teague's focus would have been that priority one is stop our momentum by firstly slowing down our ball movement and therefore the game (as opposed to getting the momentum back by attacking and scoring themselves). To do so he dropped a player back. And no doubt demanded his team increase their pressure (which was woeful in the first quarter). Then the second quarter become an arm wrestle. As you say when the game slowed down and there was less space in our forward line we repeatedly turned the ball over. And the big concern is that has long been an issue for us. A combination of poor kicks and poor decision makers. If we had won that arm wrestle in the second and scored a couple more goals their approach in the second half would have had to change. They would have had to attack to bridge the gap. As it was they could simply keep chipping away at the deficit. Which is why it was so painful to watch. Only trac stood up and had the courage to attack. Everyone else seemed happy to play for time. May said as much in a presser yesterday. Agree Jackson should have been moved into the ruck. Perfect opportunity as their ruckman is also young. And his leap provides a point of difference and unpredictability and would have stopped them simply sharking Maxy's hit outs as they started doing after the first quarter (what is that about?- it seems to happen all the time). As DeeZephr pointed out we barely took any contested marks up forward. Tmac didn't have one, nor did Jackson. Playing Jackson in the ruck would have allowed Maxy could go forward and provide a much needed contested marking option and create some scoring opportunities and wrest the momentum back. On momentum it didn't appear we tried anything tactically to get it back or at the least stop theirs. How about Harley deep out of the square allowing Fritter to play high half forward and giving him chop out from Jones, who was killing him. Or Smith up forward and Fritter back. Or May and Tmac swapping. Something. Oliver was beating Cripps, their best mid by a country mile (arguably close to the best in the league). What did Teague do? Move him forward. And it almost won them the game. I'm no goody knocker, and the risk of giving grist to the mill of those who are, tactically he (and Richo to be fair) did not have great day.

I don't think pw is saying we should have gone after the younger Jones at the expense of his brother. We could have had both.

You've made this point a number of times ie the club has got Tmac to bulk up so he can play as deep forward. Which if true would be bizarre given the game has well and truly moved passed big gorillas playing out of the square. Such players are a liability as their defender just run off them leaving the team one down. Look at Hawkins - he was told (and has) to lose considerable weight so he could be more mobile and less one dimensional. The only such player i can think of in the game is Patton. And his lack of mobility is a problem for the hawks. I'm curious, how have you arrived at the conclusion the club asked TMac to bulk up to play as deep forward?

Who knows? But if you are look behind the couch.

Really appreciate this post EO. Love that rather than an automatic combative response, as sometimes feels the norm here, you are checking if your understanding of what i'm saying is correct. As it happens it isn't, though i understand how you could have reached that conclusion as the phrase playing percentages does suggest mot taking risks. I would have been better to say assess the percentages, or even better assess the risk reward ratio. Or simply making good decisions. I totally agree players have to take risks and perhaps more importantly are encouraged to do so. And that means not piling in when they make inevitable mistakes. We've all sen players paralyzed by fear of making mistakes. Stretch comes to mind. Omac and Weed too for that matter. In my opinion May actually made two mistakes. His first mistake, in my opinion, was his decision to leave the ground and go for the mark rather than spoil. Why? Because of the risk reward ratio. What was the potential reward? He marks the ball and goes back behind the mark to kick (or less likely play on). He stops an inside 50. He has time to assess his options with the next kick. But that's it. The game would have stopped and the blues players would have manned up making it difficult (but not impossible) to turn that possession into an attacking threat. If instead he chose to spoil the reward would be very similar. He stops an inside 50. If the ball goes over the boundary we can set up a stoppage with the games dominant ruck man. If it doesn't go over the line but forward it opens up the opportunity of us initiating an attacking play as everyone is in motion and the game hasn't stopped. And yes there is a risk the ball goes to a blues player still (though not goal side unless he has an air swing). And the risk of leaving the ground going for a mark? The easy goal they kicked under no pressure. The second mistake, which compounded the first, was that he failed to mark the ball or keep it going out the back. Which happens. And i'm not going to bag him for that. I reckon on the risk reward assessment it was simply the wrong decision. You're right Hero Ball is probably a bit over the top. But i do think that decision did not demonstrate great leadership as leaders are judged on their decisions more than if they make a technical error (like dropping mark, or missing a kick). You'd like to think he would not have made that decision in the last quarter when the game was on the line. Why then make it in the second? But compare that to a couple of his kick outs that he shanked going for dangerous kicks. Or for instance some of his kicks into the corridor he is capable of. If he is confident he can hit those targets than it is usually a risk worth taking, even with the chance of a turnover as the reward can be that it sets up a goal scoring opportunity. And i hope he continues to take those risks. As i do Rivers. Omac, Salem and Jetta (maybe not smith)

Don't agree.Forwards can afford to take risks. But defenders have to play the percentages. The risks are too high. I have no problem May going for a mark. But he simply has to weigh up the risk reward balance. In that particular instance as an experienced defender he had to know there was a paddock behind him and no dees player between the contest and the goals (by the by there should have been - ordinarily it would have been omac). So the percentage play was to smash it to the boundary. Once he chose to mark it instead he simply had to mark it. That goal was their first and got them going. We only just won the game. Who knows if he gets that ball out of bounds they might have taken 10 more minutes to score their first and never got close. The other issue is related to leadership. What is the message he sends by playing hero ball to his team mates, in particular a raw co defender? Is it a coincidence Smith also failed to play the percentages costing us two critical goals?

I agree. However i think there is an issue connecting Omac and Smith in so far as they don't play the same role. Smith is never going to be a lock down defender on a big. For one thing a good big forward, say a Kennedy or Darling, would simply have to much footy nous for him. If Oscar doesn't play then May has to be the lock down deep defender for their key big. But most teams have two big forwards and neither Smith or Lever are suited to matching up on them. Then we have a problem. if they keep him in defence I can see Smith taking Jetta's spot as he has the speed to go with a small, height and strength to go with a medium and leap to give the bigs a hand if a spoil from the second man in is needed. He would also have a bit more licence to take intercept marks. Used this way he would play a very similar role to Howe at the pies. In that role Omac could come in to play his full back, sweeper role allowing May to take the second big and be more attacking than if he has to play deep. It would also mean Lever can focus on the intercept role we brought him to the club to play.

I think you'll find bing was being facetious dieter....

I was thinking about that. In 2018 Brayshaw's strength was winning the ball from the contest and running with ball in hand before kicking. That penetration and metres gained was really important for us. There seems now to be much less space for players to run into. To get space enough for players to run and carry it has to get to the outside, to the wing. Perhaps that is why they tried him there.

Who knows. I only have the one game to go on. Where precisely that happened. What makes think they will change that and play TMac deep?

I know bing, Twas a little joke by moi

Maybe. But do we really need another inside mid, contested ball winner? Brayshaw will end up being relegated to retrieving balls that get kicked into the empty stands.

I have to say there is fair dose of irony trading a defender that whilst athletically gifted, strong and fast is not a natural footballer (and who it must be said is now a pretty good one) and is prone to having very costly brain fades. And replacing him down back with an athletically gifted, strong and fast bloke who is not a natural footballer and on the evidence of one game prone to having very costly brain fades.

Tmac got the memo and has done his bit. Stacked on the kegs binge watching Netflix. Gary Ablett got the same memo i reckon. But the coaching staff can't have got the memo. Because i don't reckon he set up deep once. That was left to the skinniest player in the team, who was the main target - even after getting smashed by Jones in the second half.

Smith has to stay in. As i posted yesterday it is just plain stupid to bring a young player in and drop him straight away. Hate it. Bad for the player and sends the wrong message to other players, fans and the media. The only time i think it is ok is if they a complete shocker and there is concern another one will smash their confidence. Besides he wasn't great but he was by far not our worst player. Not convinced they should play him as a defender though. I read what Chaplin said about the reasons why they want to play him as a defender. Said it was because his athleticism gives us flexibility down back and he is less likely to get injured. I get the first part but the second part makes no sense to me. I would have thought he is more likely to get injured down back where he has to contest and tackle all day. But that is by the by. The problem is it is evident he is not a natural footballer. He has low footy IQ. In the old days they could put such a player down back. Tell them to stay glued to the hip of their direct opponent and let the forward take them to the ball. That doesn't work anymore and the defender has to understand systems, zones, body positioning, when to attack, when to stay down etc etc. Kids who have come through the TAC cup system struggle with all that let alone a fella who last played footy as 15 year old. As a forward his chaos style works much better. See ball. Attack ball. Smash packs. Bring the ball to ground. Take speccies. He can be more instinctive and his athleticism becomes an attacking weapon. It is this combination of abilities that gives me confidence he can be a player. Of course forwards needs craft but i would argue playing forward is less challenging than back in terms of its testing your football IQ. And the risk reward is tipped the wrong way if you don't have that football IQ. Flying for the wrong ball and leaving a player out the back is one example of this we saw on Saturday. But he can sort that. More concerning is his kicking. Defenders are constantly put under pressure when kicking. Mistakes means goals. Natural defenders know better when and where to kick. And when not to. All that requires experience. Look at Rivers. Not only is he natural but he has played all his elite junior footy down back. And making things worse Smith is no more than an average field kick. As a forward he is really hard match up as you need a defender who can match his strength, pace and leap. They have to worry about him. Not vice versa. And like Tmac his kicking is actually really good from set shots.

Agree. And in addition to the stats you noted for nibbler you could argue he won us the game. He was terrific in that contest that resulted in him getting it to Tmac to enable the pass to Fritter. it was cleaver too as he was alter to the fact that the ball had not gone over the boundry (really bad error by the blues as was tmac being on his lonesome). The point Fritter then scored was the last score of the match and the winning margin. Hunt was also important in that last 2 minutes as unlike some of his team mates was gut running to contests.

I watched the suns and saints game. Jeez both clubs have some brilliant field kicks. More than us.

On Lever, for me it is a furphy if we over paid for him. Doesn't matter now. What matters is how he plays going forward. He is a really good player but as i have said a number of times poor on one one. His one wood is being an excellent intercept mark and reading the movement of the ball as it comes down field. And that is the role we drafted him for. And that is how we should play him. Forget what we paid for him. If we paid overs so be it. There have been some excellent posts on this topic pointing out that the intercept role is dependent on the other defenders all doing their job. And as noted by someone usually requires at least one true lock down defender. This was the model the Crows used when Lever played his best footy, with Thalia as the lock down general being critical to his success.

Only scratch matches. But i don't think it is form as much as fitness and possibly issues still with his feet or similar. He doesn't seem to be able to leap for the ball and is nowhere near as agile as he is when right.

At the moment Tmac cannot play back. He is simply too slow and heavy. People worry about Omac's pace. Well he would beat his brother in a sprint. And it is well worth remembering why he went forward in the first place. He was close to being dropped because down back he was a shockingly unreliable kick (who seemed to want always test that by taking risky options). Worse that Frost. He needs to be dropped. Bring Weed in.