binman

Agree, The other issue is the game has changed, with all teams now employing much more aggressive zones and all team defence. This means that we are more frequently kicking into a crowded forward line where there is n out number. That was happening in 2018 but not to the same extent. And into that mix you can add that in 2018 we had two of the best big forwards in the game in hogan and Tmac, an in form Melksham and Hannan and in the finals VDB. The other thing is that last year and this year all teams are now employing a deep back/sweeper to stop the out the back goal (think of how dew you see no, in any game). And of course tempo footy has become the norm. Hard to play manic, play on footy when the opposition is playing mogodon ball.

Agree. The forwards get let off the hook a bit in terms of work rate. The all team defense pretty much all teams employ these days (which is a the heart of the low scoring) requires just that - every player to work hard defensively. To do that forwards, in addition to manic defensive pressure inside our 50 have to be able to push right up the ground to help out defensively and then sprint back when we win the ball. Players like melksham are just are not doing that. Nor is is Tmac this last year or his year. is it fitness or work ethic? I suspect part of the logic of not having weed in the team (and having smaller forward line) is i don't reckon he is fir enough, and/or athletic to the running required. TMac did but doesn't ATM. I wonder if Brown does? If he does i'd bring him in. This running is one of the key things we have missed with Hogan. In 208 him and Tmac were up and down the ground all day. As was a fit Hannan and in the finals VDB

I agree AF it is too simplistic to say it is all about the lack of foot skills. Agree also decision making is a big issue. On decision making i agree the game plan may not help. And agree it is the coaches responsibility to help improve decision. But I worry that we have too many players who are simply not great on field thinkers. The other think I'd more is skill and decision making intersect. i firmly believe many players burn the obvious kick and resort to bombing it (down the line or inside 50) because they don't have confidence in their ability to hit the target. Players hesitate all the time for example when seeing a switch option. Or take an easy option and kick it to an out number (so bad decision) rather than take a risk and hit an obvious target. And for me thus is where the coaching comes in. Players should be encouraged to take the risk. Or at least more of them. I'd rather them miss a target and cause a turnover than simply gifting the opposition an easy out number intercept mark. But players look scared to take risks. In part perhaps because tbey doubt their skill but I wonder if the messaging is right.

Here's a likely change: The odds for our Suns game. Remarkably we are $1.80 favorites. That will surely change.

Gawn was awesome gain. That said a growing concern is how often opposition teams are sharking his taps, particularly after a quarter or so. That is not his fault as such, it is down to getting our set up at stoppages right. And at the risk of putting everything at the coaches feet it is their job, well specifically Mathews as the mid coach, to get the set ups working right.

I have a confession. I am not Garry Baker. I am Gary Lyon. And I'm also redleg. At least I think I am as I could have written this post and spoke the words Gary is quoted as saying. Both spot on x 1000. Red you make a very good point about our game plan. We had a window when that ballistic style could work for us. But since 2018 the use of zones has accelaterated and now clog up the ground in a way that makes every kick forward a challenge because your targets are always outnumbered (by the by the 666 rule was supposed to address this - and has failed) - which is the key reason scores are so low. (The zones and ability for teams that run hard to get back have also almost eliminated our coast to coast goals we got so many off in 2018. And the zones also punish turnovers ) This kick forward requires skill. To escape the zone teams have to work the ball back and across the ground and stretch the opposition. And eventually hit an attacking kick and then the next one inside 50. These kicks are often under no pressure, but still require skill, even if if kicking to a free man as long kicks (eg crosses to the dat side) need to be low and flat, some need to be kicked between players onto pockets of space, some need to be sideways and when they finally bite the bullet, for example a kick to the corridor, they need to be fast and accurate. We simply do not have players with those skills. And as Tim Watson said there is no easy fix. Richmond have a similar, though not identical, game plan. The difference is they have players like cotchin, houli, Martin, constagania and rioli who are all elite kicks. And most of their list is at least average standard. And most important of all they have few absolute butchers.

So roos said. Illustrates the same problem though as roos would have selected billings, an in and under mid, ahead of a silky, outside player who was an elite kick even then. And besides, as it turns out, I'd rather we took billings anyway. For full disclosure i supported the decision at the time. But that doesn't change the fact it has proven to be the wrong decision. Fact is they should have chosen Kelly. Not because he has proven to be a gun. But because the roos Goodwin game plan built around contested ball has proven to be redundant and they have both failed to bring elite or even above average kicks to the clubs.

I hope he would acknowledge our issues are in part due to the players he recruited. For a start the decision to take Salem and Tyson rather than Kelly

To quote the commentary on NBA 2K20, 'we've seen that movie a few times'

You can't coach skill errors? What does that even mean? What you can do is recruit players who will make skill error for their whole careers. And choose not to recruit barely a single elite kick in 8 years. And then you can marry that decision with a game plan that, like any game plan, relies on players hitting targets inside 50 (or if bombing it in at least kicking it to a forwards advantage) and not making dozens of ridiculous turnovers every game (because of the decision to recruit players who will make skill error for their whole careers). And then you can go to post match press conference and wearily answer the same question about connection going inside 40. And promise we will work on it. Unlike you Saty i don't blame the players. If you don't have the skills, you don't have the skills. You might improve a bit (or like Salem and Oliver you might go backwards) but there is no magic fairy dust that is suddenly going to make a rubbish kick into a good one. Again, both Roos and Goodwin are to blame for our list and our current problems as their recruiting strategy as been to weighted towards contest ball winners at the expense of skill.

Sure, but the point remains is that a player who comes to the AFL as a poor or even average kick will rarely get much better, particularly their field kicking. The reason of course is like golf swing it is all about technique and by the time they get to the AFL they have kicked it hundreds of thousands of times. Very hard to change a golf swing and very hard to change kicking technique. I can count on one hand dees players who have improved more than marginally. Jones is one, who gtes much more penetration than when he first started Set shots are easier to correct because it is more mental, they have time to gather themselves and they can develop a set routine. Cassboult is good example. This is the key reason i feel so concerned about where we are at as club. As i have been banging on about we are simply a terrible kicking side, at a time in footy's evolution where kicking in the skill that separates teams as all teams now compete and defend. All clubs have our one wood. But the best ones have mix of a few elite kicks (like say bot Kellys), above average kicks (like say Heath Shaw), mostly average kicks and very few, if any real butchers (insert 15 dees players here). I don't care what game plan is employed if you have team full of poor kicks then you are stuffed. And it will take years to recruit and draft ourselves out of this problem. Again as i have noted before i put the blame squarely at the feet of Goodwin and Roos for almost exclusively chasing competitive ball winners and getting no elite ball users. Viney is the prefect example. As is Brayshaw. Oliver is becoming one.

Can't imagine Simon would find it that funny. Though i'm sure he would find some learnings from the experience

When the story of this match is written lets not forget they didn't have a bench in the last

The story of our team I'm afraid.

Total respect for Hibberd.

Fair suck of the sav. At training we rarely miss a target. Yes I know it is pretty well known that in an AFL game there is usually a fair bit of pressure but hey let's get training right first. The key thing is that there is lots of learnings. That our players could expect pressure in a game of footy is one of those learnings.

It might be both

Levers running is so lazy. Got himself caught in no mans land then and allowed dusty to kick under no pressure

Smith has to be dropped for not manning the mark properly. Unforgivable

That was the worst decision i have seen all season against trac

Good Lord I hope bennell gets fit soon. We need his kicking skills more than we need competitive beasts. Am I right in thinking Bedford is a a good kick? If so I'd put him straight in. We work so hard for so little result. But we kickec two great goals through agaggresse kicks. I hope they keep it up. Rather lose attacking then lose in a scrappy game of rugby

Reminds me of one of more depressing sledges i yell at the footy when the dees are being flogged and their fans are giving it to us (which Ive noted on here before): Shows how rubbish you are (insert team here) - a half decent team would be 10 Goals up (or 15 if they are already 10 up)

No, their slow ball movement was primarily a tactic to ensure the game was not played fast as clearly with our selections and their lack of leg speed a fast game would have been to our advantage. They had 60 more non contested marks than us. That has to be close to some sort of record. And 54 more uncontested possessions. The game was played on their terms and in a way that negated our relative strengths As you point out they only scored 7 goals. I thought the defence played pretty well but i wouldn't be too quick to pump up their tyres as the Cat's game style also meant they only had 38 inside 50s (we had 46). And with 12 scoring shots they scored with close to every third entry and with 9 marks marked it every four times they came inside 50.

I don't thin it has an expiry date. At least i hope not as i plan to buy some stuff (and checked the email i got to see if there was an expiry date and there wasn't)

Yep agree. And clever coaching in terms of maximizing their chances of winning. A big part of my frustration is I think we should have spanked them. And leaving that aside it was a dreadful game to watch. As I noted elsewhere a noun point would at least provide some incentive to score