We're not that bad (or we shouldn't be)

[Young Blood]

Hi all

I've been reading your posts for the last year or so and have finally decided to join in. Given the understandable concern at our performances thus far, I thought I'd humbly offer my assessment of where we're at and how we can improve.

Overall I think our list is pretty good. We have several goalkickers, including a good FF and an excellent CHF. Ball is always competitive in the ruck and Jolly's tapwork looks very promising. Our inside midfielders and run-with players are among the best in the league in those roles. We also have several outside players who have vision, creativity and skill. Our mid-size and small backs are rarely beaten when playing on similar-sized players, and more often than not are the source of our attacks. IMHO, our only glaring deficiency is in KP backs, of whom we only have one who is currently up to standard, and unfortunately Schaubs is injury-prone. (As has been noted often elsewhere, Leo and B2 have done a stirling job playing against bigger opponents, but we'd be a much better team if they could play against other opponents).

So, if we're so good, why are we struggling to kick 10 goals a game? Clearly some players are out of form, but I think there are also some structural changes required.

Since the debacle against North, we've moved the ball more quickly more often. This is a very good thing. But most of the time, when we do move it quickly, we're under fierce pressure and bomb it long to BBBH and about 4 opponents (the Melbourne game is weighing heavily on my mind here). I know this is basic, but Plan A has to be to get the ball between wing and half forward to a marking forward or a midfielder who has run into space and has time to deliver to a leading forward under less pressure.

How to do this? First we need Goodes, Davis and Schneider to spend more time in the midfield. They all have, in various combinations, the creativity, flair and skill that many of our other midfielders lack. When the ball is in their hands, they usually create space for others around them or pick out good targets upfield. Second, now Magic is back in the team, I think BBBH should play more of a true CHF role. When we're attacking from our back half, I'd like to see him getting the ball 60-70m out from goal and passing quickly to a leading Magic/O'Keefe/Davis/Jolly 30-40m out. Third, we've got to have a crumber on the forward line to get front and square and tackle hard. Schneider & Buchanan are the obvious candidates to rotate through this position. (Watching on the box, I've hardly seen them up forward this year. Have they been there?)

So there you go. If Roos would just do these things - and we could get Schaubs back on the ground - our (short term) problems would be solved! It's pretty simple really, isn't it?

[Wil]

Re: We're not that bad (or we shouldn't be)

Originally posted by Young Blood
Second, now Magic is back in the team, I think BBBH should play more of a true CHF role. When we're attacking from our back half, I'd like to see him getting the ball 60-70m out from goal and passing quickly to a leading Magic/O'Keefe/Davis/Jolly 30-40m out. Third, we've got to have a crumber on the forward line to get front and square and tackle hard. Schneider & Buchanan are the obvious candidates to rotate through this position. (Watching on the box, I've hardly seen them up forward this year. Have they been there?)

Welcome to the board.

Love your points. I think true KP in the backs has been our main problem since Dunk and Roos retired. The first thing I would of done if I was coach is get some true KP backmen in the team. I would rather solid players in each position than the current "depth" in the midfield we have.

I don't agree with Altruistic Barry Hall going to CHF. In past years I always complained that we rely too much on ABH to kick all the goals. Now it seems we have tried too hard to move away from this reliance and have shot ourselves in the foot. The other point is the move of having ABH going from being a good leading forward to always being in contests. We used to easily get the ball to Barry on a strong lead from the goal square where he could kick an easy goal from 30-40 metres out. What happened to this?

Completely agree about having a crumber in the forward line. Liz had the idea of putting Moore in that position, which I think is a great idea. From what I have seen of him in the preseason he has a pretty good footy brain on him - just what we need in the forwards.

[sharp9]

Our problem is pretty simple. Statistics lie.

We had as many more clearances than Melbourne and as many entries to the forward fifty.

HOWEVER our clearances were, generally, crappy, in close to no one or hit and hope kicks...and our entries to the fifty were simply shocking.

When Melbourne managed to win a clearance they nearly always split the game open...and when they delivered to the fifty it was nearly always to the advantage of their forward and usually lace out in space. When they won a clearance MacLean either took off through the centre with the ball or got it to a running player who had already taken off seeing that the ball was about to be won. When we dish off from a clearance the receiver is usually flat footed and facing the wrong way trying to block his opponent.

Their kicking down the line was very quick and almost always resulted in a mark...even when a Swan was right on the receiving players' back he couldn't reach for the spoil...that's how good their leading and kicking was. Adelaide was the same.

We are embarrassing. We consider it a win if we kick it long and it goes out of bounds, that is how far below AFL standard we are.

My (laboured ) point is that this is fixable. It cannot be that hard for our forwards to get themselves into a position where they will not be outnumbered when the ball arrives. we need at least two plyers WHOSE JOB IT IS to get to the fall of the ball. All our so called small forwards are helping out in the midfield.

We have five players doing the basics really right...(Kirk, Jude, Ablett, Dempster, Jolly) plus Williams who was good till he got injured, one player playing well in all but his kicking for goal (Davis). That's nearly a third of the team.

Kirk, Ablett and Jude had 62 possessions for 1 clanger and 8 frees for, 1 against. They are doing a lot right. They are not the cream....but they are genuine cake make no mistake about it.

Then there are three players doing lots of good things but also making hideous errors (Kennelly, Barry, C. Bolton). these are talented players who only need their clangers to be average possessions and they become matchwinners.

There are five players trying to be too fancy - resulting in ineffectual, but not actually clanger ridden, disposals (Schneider, Spriggs, Buchanan, McVeigh and O'Keefe) and three brilliant forwards who can turn it around pretty quickly (Goodes, Hall, O'Loughlin).

That's more than three quarters of the team.

The only players actually costing us are Nicks, Mathews, Maxfield, Crouch, Bevan and LRT. That is to say that their bad or ineffectual is far outweighing their positive contributions.

I don't know if LRT has a future at all, I really don't. When he goes forward he never seems to get a possession and when he is down back he doesn't get any either, although he has kept his opponents honest for the most part. Add to that his well documeted below par disposal and....

Crouch has got under the rader but I believe he has been beaten in five matches in a row. Not good for the team when the likes of Aker, Crawford, Grant and Davey are not held. He is a proven performer, though so you have to back him to get back on top when fitter and others in the teams are not gifting possession to his man.

Bevan has been very disappointing. You would think that he would have learned the rules by now, but apparently not...you can't take possession on the ground OR get tackled without prior opportunity and then NOT TRY to release the ball. It's all very well if YOU know that the tackler has you wrapped up, but the umpire needs to SEE that you are trying as hard as you can to move the ball on and are being prevented from doing so. THEN he calls ball up. It's in the Ump DVD which we have all seen. Seems to lack vision and/or the confidence to kick to any situation where deftness of disposal is required to get it to team mate. Hence holding on the ball for an eternity hoping for someone to present in miles of space. Surely someone must be leading on all those occassions but is ignored for being not a safe enough option. Indicitive of plyers playing with fear for their own place in the side. Of course it backfires...when will they learn that actually you will look better by kicking to the first HALF decent option, 'cos if it's a quick delvery you stop the other team flooding back!!!!! When will they learn??????

Mathews' disposal has been average or poor for more than five years. I think that he is not worth persevering with. End of story.

Nicks has done a couple of good things but his casualness and lack of brain or attention to detail when disposing of the ball mean that he should left out as soon as the coaching staff feel anyone else could do his job (Saddington, Malceski, Sundqvist, Powell...someone). To kick 45 metres to an opponent in the goal square AGAIN (After the shellacking he took for doing it against Brisbane TWICE) indicates to me that his time as an AFL footballer is over. And the brain explosions/handballs straight to opponents for goal/ kick-out to opponents. Oh dear. Instrumental in setting up one good goal in the 4th Q against brisbane. Yippee!!!

Would love to see Maxi produce a 15 possession game where he doesn't give away a free kick and always gets the ball either to team mate or long to an even or better than even contest. I fear I will never see it again. Is being badly outpaced by his opponents when played out wide. Chasing tail leading to regular infringements.

[NMWBloods]

Pretty good points overall S9.

[ROK Lobster]

This thread is quietly becoming a very good one.

For my two bobs worth I still think that Schneider's true role is a fwd pocket crumbing goal sneak, who also puts a lot of pressure on the defence trying to get the ball out of the defensive 50. IMO the lack of crumbing fwds and pressure on the ball coming back out has been a major difference between 2003 and the last season + 5 rds. If Moore is the man for the job, fantastic. If he is not, get someone else. The problem with having a battalion of rotating midfielders with one resting up fwd seems to be that they are going there for a rest and are spent because of our moving pack game plan. Too often the look on the faces of the players when the ball hits the deck is one of resignation and frustration. It is as though they don't have the juice in the tank to keep it there, and off it goes again. Like Young Bloods above I'd rather see hall at CHF than FF, but with more emphasis on the C than the H. Keep him pretty much along the spine. Not only is he, when back in form, a great mark but he is one of the best kicks in the team. Unlike many of our players he can hit a chest on a lead with a low fast pass. We dont see many strong leads from our forwards because we rarely see our midfielders drill a pass.

[Sanecow]

Resting players at full forward is ridiculous IMHO. If they need a rest, put them on the bench. To claim that the forward line is a good place to rest is to admit that it doesn't see enough action.

[Schneiderman]

Wow. This has to be one of the best balanced analyses I've seen on RWO so far. Lets see if I can add to it without mucking it up:

Kirk, Jude and Ablett appear to have lifted (or at least maintained a high standard) from last year. As far as in-and-under players go, we actually are getting near the Kelly/Cresswell heydays with these three. Fingers-crossed it continues to improve.

ROK - Is he a forward flanker or an attacking midfielder / receiver? Did very well at the former last year but crap so far this year, but actually did very well in the latter last week. I feel a decision to stick him in one or the other for an extended period may be the best for him. For mine, the attacking receiver role is best perservered with, as we know he has speed, good hands and an accurate left foot.

Davis - similar to ROK, except more as an outside midfielder or winger. Showed a lot of promise in the Brisbane game, and did some nice things in the same role against Melbourne.

Schneider and Buchanan - One has to play in the midfield and one has to crumb the forward line. Neither has the endurance or creativity to stay in the midfield for too long yet, and when they are both near each other they seem to get in each others way. Their thinking seems that similar to me. And both seem so midfield-hungry (or is it Roos) that we rarely see either crumbing regularly.

LRT - Big bodied players with endurance are hard to come by, especially in our "team of midgets" thanks to injuries. The lad is still young, still about 4-5yrs behind on the development curve thanks to his rugby heritage, and still a very talented sportsman. I think giving him another couple of years to develop is a worthwhile risk, at least until our latest round of recruits start to overtake him in their development. He is actually one of the safest in the side because he is so damn hard to replace.

MOL & BBBH - Roos needs to use these two differently on the SCG vs everwhere else. FF & CHF respectively on the MCG and Subi is fine, but they get in each others way on the SCG (anyone remember the ill-fated Lockett return?). There is no need for a CHF at home, as Melbourne showed us last week, so push Bazza back into the square and clear the room in front of him. You can always use the spare player as loose in defence anyway. But then Bazza has to play in the middle of the ground on the bigger grounds, and with his size and strength he has to OWN that central 50m arc.

Kennelly - Agree with others that he needs to play much more time in the middle of the park now. He is getting frustrated down the back, and it shows. We need his run, and I am certain that his disposals will improve when he can stop trying to be so creative under the pressure our team creates unnecessarily down there. More goals like against Collingwood last year please.

Goodes - Back in the ruck or at least ruck rover please. We tried him everywhere else and he has been about as good as 2000-2002... good but not Brownlow. Yes he is valuable, and yes he has been injured, but lets ask him whether he wants another Brownlow or better yet, a Premiership?

Schauble - Our side looks SO MUCH BETTER with him in it. Period. Even his return last year showed it. And I dont rate him as high as Dunks either. We need to find a replacement out of the current bunch, or at least buy one with trade.

Thats my two cents. And I still believe our side really isn't that crap. Just some tweaks needed to structure, a little something creative to ignite the desire to win... as opposed to the current fear of losing.

[giant]

Originally posted by sharp9


My (laboured ) point is that this is fixable. It cannot be that hard for our forwards to get themselves into a position where they will not be outnumbered when the ball arrives. we need at least two plyers WHOSE JOB IT IS to get to the fall of the ball. All our so called small forwards are helping out in the midfield.

This point is (one of the most) baffling points about this year to me. It's an area where we've done very nicely thx veyr much in the past - where Schneider kicked 30+ goals just 2 yrs ago and where Davis, O'Keefe & Buchanan have been useful in the past. On Saturday it was almost non-existent.

Yes, it's nice to have a dozen midfielders about the same standard but isn't also nice to have 1 or 2 superior quality crumbing players as well?

[giant]

[
Thats my two cents. And I still believe our side really isn't that crap. Just some tweaks needed to structure, a little something creative to ignite the desire to win... as opposed to the current fear of losing. [/B]

Agreed, they're not crap. But they are playing crap and something needs to change. I guess that's the same point you're making...

[mocaholic]

NO NO NO STOP TRYING TO PUT ANY POSITIVE (OR EVEN BALANCED) SPIN ON OUR SITUATION!

I don't care how thought provoking and sensible it is. Go away. Let me wallow in my misery and pessimism.

Thankyou.

[Rizzo]

My concern about Kennelly in the middle is his lack of awareness of tackling opponents. While not in the Bevan category (a player BTW who I still think will be a star of the game), he has been know to push his luck.

On balance, I agree. Looks like Roos is going to put him there on the weekend. He has the speed and the agility to do a great job.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Kirk, Jude and Ablett appear to have lifted (or at least maintained a high standard) from last year. As far as in-and-under players go, we actually are getting near the Kelly/Cresswell heydays with these three. Fingers-crossed it continues to improve.[/b]

These 3 have been a good and are a good base to build a very solid match winning midfield. Now the big problem is that they DON'T have midfielders of the likes of Judd and Cousins to dish out to, that is the midfields BIGGEST problem. There is no real drive coming from the midfield and its no surprise that we always seem to get our drive coming out of defence.

It works if players like Kennelly and Barry are on top form and providing that drive, but with Barry forced more into a holding role with Schauble out of the side and Kennelly getting dragged back more and more, they is just a big hole in our drive because we are relying on the likes of Mathews, Nicks, Maxfield, Crouch, Buchanan and Spriggs to provide the forward drive needed to supply the forwards, thus any moves into the forward 50 are out wide and of poor quality, thus the forwards have no hope of kicking match winning scores.

Therefore the midfield NEEDS to have the more attacking midfielders and the only ones we really have are either better off used in the forward line (Davis, Schneider, Buchanan and O'Keefe) or just not getting any gametime to make any impact (McVeigh and Spriggs). I would also like to see the likes of Moore, Willoughby and Malceski given a run in the midfield to see if they are able to provide a consistent drive than what we have in there at the moment.

Davis - similar to ROK, except more as an outside midfielder or winger. Showed a lot of promise in the Brisbane game, and did some nice things in the same role against Melbourne.[/b]

We can't have both him and O'Keefe playing up the ground and expect the load to be left to Hall, O'Loughlin and Goodes - It won't work. The coaching staff need to decide which of the two is better in an advanced role and move the other closer to goal (for what its worth I rather move O'Keefe back and let Davis roam in the midfield and try and snag a few goals dropping in)

Schneider and Buchanan - One has to play in the midfield and one has to crumb the forward line. Neither has the endurance or creativity to stay in the midfield for too long yet, and when they are both near each other they seem to get in each others way. Their thinking seems that similar to me. And both seem so midfield-hungry (or is it Roos) that we rarely see either crumbing regularly.[/b]

I don't think its worthwhile trying to turn them into midfielders and I certainly don't think both should be in the team (its one or the other). As good as Buchanan was last year I think we should drop him and allow Schneider to crumb the forward line and poach a few goals (and if he doesn't produce in comes Buchanan as simple as that).

LRT - Big bodied players with endurance are hard to come by, especially in our "team of midgets" thanks to injuries. The lad is still young, still about 4-5yrs behind on the development curve thanks to his rugby heritage, and still a very talented sportsman. I think giving him another couple of years to develop is a worthwhile risk, at least until our latest round of recruits start to overtake him in their development. He is actually one of the safest in the side because he is so damn hard to replace[/b]

I agree, he is worth working with to see if we can turn him into a good player. It doesn't seem to be working at the moment but I would wait until Schauble is back to see how he goes with another tall defender back there, before writing him off. He did well in pre season with Guy Campbell behind him and maybe without a real tall behind him, he doesn't have the confidence to play the way we want him to. Will play this week thanks to no other ruck options available and I think he should get 2 to 3 more match after that when Schauble comes back.

MOL & BBBH - Roos needs to use these two differently on the SCG vs everwhere else. FF & CHF respectively on the MCG and Subi is fine, but they get in each others way on the SCG (anyone remember the ill-fated Lockett return?). There is no need for a CHF at home, as Melbourne showed us last week, so push Bazza back into the square and clear the room in front of him. You can always use the spare player as loose in defence anyway. But then Bazza has to play in the middle of the ground on the bigger grounds, and with his size and strength he has to OWN that central 50m arc.[/b]

No Hall needs to play CHF at the SCG because when he is put in the goal square teams just double team him and we struggle to help him out. Melbourne would of been so happy to see Barry play as close to goal as he did on Saturday Night because it meant Hall wouldn't be able to test out Brad Millar around the ground. You can't drop a second man back on Hall if he is running all across the ground.

Magic needs gametime so he can get his form back and its him who needs to play out of the square with maybe Jason Saddington or a resting ruckman beside him to work his magic.

Goodes - Back in the ruck or at least ruck rover please. We tried him everywhere else and he has been about as good as 2000-2002... good but not Brownlow. Yes he is valuable, and yes he has been injured, but lets ask him whether he wants another Brownlow or better yet, a Premiership?[/b]

Its simple with Goodes, let him roam around the ground and he makes an IMPACT. Put him in a set position and keep him there and he becomes a nothing player. So put him in the middle either as a ruckman or ruckrover (even as a centreman to replace Willo for the next few weeks) and watch the impact.

The end, we have a side capable of winning offen on paper and we should be putting in better efforts than the past two weeks. However we still are a key defender and two attacking midfielders short of a team that can push for the flag. We can forget about it for this year and plan ahead for next year, while still going out to win each week.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by robbieando
We can't have both him and O'Keefe playing up the ground and expect the load to be left to Hall, O'Loughlin and Goodes - It won't work. The coaching staff need to decide which of the two is better in an advanced role and move the other closer to goal (for what its worth I rather move O'Keefe back and let Davis roam in the midfield and try and snag a few goals dropping in)

And rotate them whilst they get used to the fitness demands. Even Spriggs can be thrown in here to change the player type - left footer skilled player / right footer skilled player / fast high endurance player.

I don't think its worthwhile trying to turn them into midfielders and I certainly don't think both should be in the team (its one or the other).

Agree. Rather than bring true midfielders in, we are tending to try and turn flankers into them. Probably as a result of not having any clear midfielders to choose from. Rather like St Kilda turning Gherig into a FF, only less successful.

No Hall needs to play CHF at the SCG because when he is put in the goal square teams just double team him and we struggle to help him out. Melbourne would of been so happy to see Barry play as close to goal as he did on Saturday Night because it meant Hall wouldn't be able to test out Brad Millar around the ground. You can't drop a second man back on Hall if he is running all across the ground.

You haven't convinced me. If we had some better crumbing (including MOL as one), we would have done a lot better. I want to see opponents double-team Bazza and leave one of our forwards free. And if he out-muscles them, as he can quite often, even better. I prefer to give him the area down the spine between the 50m arc and the goal square, and dare the other team to drop a player in front of him. He is still much more effective there because he forces a contest. Its better than having him lead to the wings, and having a 40% conversion rate

Its simple with Goodes, let him roam around the ground and he makes an IMPACT. Put him in a set position and keep him there and he becomes a nothing player. So put him in the middle either as a ruckman or ruckrover (even as a centreman to replace Willo for the next few weeks) and watch the impact.

Spot on

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by Rizzo
My concern about Kennelly in the middle is his lack of awareness of tackling opponents. While not in the Bevan category (a player BTW who I still think will be a star of the game), he has been know to push his luck.

I think this is just a lack of shepherding and blocks put on by team mates, some just seem to watch him run by or that is how it appears.

[Nico]

Try this one on for size.

All and sundry say we have the guns up forward but don't score enough goals. Hall, MO'L, Davis, O'Keefe, Goodes etc etc etc.

They think that if all fire we should win = Hall5, M.O'L4, Davis 4, O'Keefe 3, Goodes2 = 18 goals plus a couple from the midfield or others = 22-23 goals. Never happens. It's all theory this forward strength. To many cooks for mine.

Leave hall, MO'L, O'Keefe as specialist forwards.

Davis to be midfield/ forward who runs into the forward line to take a handpass instead of being the number 5 lead on the forward line. Running in instead of leading up. We have no midfield goal kickers.

Goodes to defence and release Kennelly and if possible BoltonC onto wing and midfield respectively. With Schauble back that should be possible.

So structure changes, players running into space on the fat side of the forward line while a forward leads to the other side to give a viable option and probably an uncontested mark. Gives a completely different look to the forward line, not much change in personnel, fewer players getting in each others way up forward.

Drop a couple of players with poor disposal.