Rd 10 vs North Melbourne @ Marvel - Match Thread

[wolftone57]

Yep, when we occasionally win a free kick count deluded Vic fans bring out the old "Swans are the AFL darlings" chestnut just to prove how removed from reality they are.

It would have been a lot more had all the indescretions and throws been counted. Do any AFL players even bother to handball now? The umpires give the occasional free for a throw and it baffles me why they pick those out when they let go the last 1,000.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Watching the last two minutes again, I can say Hugh Greenwood was very lucky he didn’t have a HTB paid against him, leading to the stoppage before the interchange breach. Dragged the ball in, lay on it and made no attempt whatsoever to get it out.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

I thought the same. A friend told me today that a stat was put out somewhere that of the last 60 similar situations only 4 HTB decisions have been given. Appears the umpires have put away the whistle.

- - - Updated - - -

Horse said afterwards that Bud took it on himself to do that, and go help win the game. I get the ongoing debate about his decline, but he was certainly invested on Saturday, and he made some big plays in the last quarter.

His tackling was a highlight. Maybe he goes to CHF and Heeney to FF.

[Nico]

It would have been a lot more had all the indescretions and throws been counted. Do any AFL players even bother to handball now? The umpires give the occasional free for a throw and it baffles me why they pick those out when they let go the last 1,000.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

Oliver got pinged 3 times for blatant throws against PA.

[wolftone57]

The Rowbottom thing doesn't work at centre bounces. Get someone in there who can read the play and not intent on blocking and holding.

I think Rowie is told to do that. His natural game is not that.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[liz]

Assume the tongue in check response but the midfiled stats matter, clearances, stoppages. Those translate to more inside 50s, cleaner entries, furst use etc.

Listen to Nathan Buckley if you dont like to hear it from me


George
George Wardlaw Draft Profile - Aussie Rules Rookie Me Central (formerly AFL Draft Central)

Your reference to Wardlaw - as I now understand - was confusing because you suggested he was touted as top five before injury. He was taken in the top five - number four, to be precise - even with his injuries. And based on Saturday you can certainly see why. He looks like he'll be an excellent player very soon.

As for the "stats" that matter, there is one stat that matters above all others - score at the end of the game.

Everything else is up for debate.

Richmond defied most of the contested ball and clearance stats during their period of dominance. Collingwood are better at clearances this season - Mitchell is helping in that department - but last year it was an area they were very poor in while still regularly winning. I believe Geelong have mostly been middle of the table when it comes to clearances and contested possessions.

Buckley was a brilliant player and is an experienced coach, but I never find him especially compelling when it comes to media analysis. For all his flaws and idiosyncrasies, David King is the one that - for me - seems to be able to best cut through the noise and identify what's going right for a team and what is going wrong. (Leigh Montagna seems to be trying to do a similar thing to King but he seems to fog things up with too many variables and data, at least in how he presents things to the public.)

King has me convinced that there isn't any one stat - or group of stats - that matter the most. Different teams play in different ways and thus have different groups of stats that matter most to them. If a team isn't quite going as well as it should be on paper, you need to look to which stats matter most for that team and why they are not delivering on that score.

We've never been (or not in recent memory) a team that scores well on contested possessions or clearances, especially centre clearances. And that includes last year. For us it's more about preventing damage from opposition clearances, creating turnovers via pressure, and then how we move the ball once we have regained possession.

None of this is intended as a defence of some of the awful stuff from Saturday. But the raw stats - how many clearances the Roos got - I think are far less important than how poor we were at then defending their ball movement. I've not looked up any of the more complex stats, but I suspect our pressure in general, and tackling in parts, were a bit down. And clearly there's some structural / intent / technical issues at centre bounces.

At least part of the problem is that the coaches seem to have so little faith in the defensive unit that they are throwing extra numbers back there. It's not working. I doubt it ever works, unless it's a single player who is excellent at reading the play and taking a mark. More little blokes just means that none of them thinks they have responsibility for guarding opponents. They just stand and do nothing. And I suspect they get in each other's way when we're trying to move the ball out of our defence.

Meanwhile, we are outnumbered at contests further up the ground, which is part of the reason we are losing clearances. (Not centre clearances, obviously. This doesn't apply there.)

Regardless of personnel, I reckon they need to back in whoever is available to do their best, and keep the numbers in the middle of the ground better stocked.

[Blood Fever]

Horse said afterwards that Bud took it on himself to do that, and go help win the game. I get the ongoing debate about his decline, but he was certainly invested on Saturday, and he made some big plays in the last quarter.

Could easily have kicked 5. We butchered the ball a couple of times when he was one out and had the drop in his opponent. Also his kick to Ladhams that resulted in a goal was magnificently weighted.

[wolftone57]

Your reference to Wardlaw - as I now understand - was confusing because you suggested he was touted as top five before injury. He was taken in the top five - number four, to be precise - even with his injuries. And based on Saturday you can certainly see why. He looks like he'll be an excellent player very soon.

As for the "stats" that matter, there is one stat that matters above all others - score at the end of the game.

Everything else is up for debate.

Richmond defied most of the contested ball and clearance stats during their period of dominance. Collingwood are better at clearances this season - Mitchell is helping in that department - but last year it was an area they were very poor in while still regularly winning. I believe Geelong have mostly been middle of the table when it comes to clearances and contested possessions.

Buckley was a brilliant player and is an experienced coach, but I never find him especially compelling when it comes to media analysis. For all his flaws and idiosyncrasies, David King is the one that - for me - seems to be able to best cut through the noise and identify what's going right for a team and what is going wrong. (Leigh Montagna seems to be trying to do a similar thing to King but he seems to fog things up with too many variables and data, at least in how he presents things to the public.)

King has me convinced that there isn't any one stat - or group of stats - that matter the most. Different teams play in different ways and thus have different groups of stats that matter most to them. If a team isn't quite going as well as it should be on paper, you need to look to which stats matter most for that team and why they are not delivering on that score.

We've never been (or not in recent memory) a team that scores well on contested possessions or clearances, especially centre clearances. And that includes last year. For us it's more about preventing damage from opposition clearances, creating turnovers via pressure, and then how we move the ball once we have regained possession.

None of this is intended as a defence of some of the awful stuff from Saturday. But the raw stats - how many clearances the Roos got - I think are far less important than how poor we were at then defending their ball movement. I've not looked up any of the more complex stats, but I suspect our pressure in general, and tackling in parts, were a bit down. And clearly there's some structural / intent / technical issues at centre bounces.

At least part of the problem is that the coaches seem to have so little faith in the defensive unit that they are throwing extra numbers back there. It's not working. I doubt it ever works, unless it's a single player who is excellent at reading the play and taking a mark. More little blokes just means that none of them thinks they have responsibility for guarding opponents. They just stand and do nothing. And I suspect they get in each other's way when we're trying to move the ball out of our defence.

Meanwhile, we are outnumbered at contests further up the ground, which is part of the reason we are losing clearances. (Not centre clearances, obviously. This doesn't apply there.)

Regardless of personnel, I reckon they need to back in whoever is available to do their best, and keep the numbers in the middle of the ground better stocked.

The days of winning with rebound footy as 90% of your weaponry are over. Need to move on from that, it is too predictable. Putting one man back and being one short at the coalface today is rope adope footy. Totally stupid, because that team is going to take full advantage of the extra. On Saturday it was very conspicuous when we had one less at the ball. We lost the clearances and they spread very quickly creating the overlap.

Are some of our mids too old fashioned? Are they too slow? I think they might be but then again it could be fitness levels as that will make you a metre slower.

I agree that the coaches have to back the personnel on the park. Stop telling any journo who will listen that we have lots of the more talented players sitting in the stands. It must make the players who are on the park feel pretty lousy. It is not good for morale to demean your playing group. It is better to say we have a few talls out which is causing consternation. Causing a few problems positioning wise. But the boys on the park are trying to fit those roles but at this stage due to inexperience they have yet to hit their straps. They have not had time to settle into the positions. That would have been far better than 'WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD PLAYERS OUT, ESPECIALLY TALLS'.

That gives the impression the replacements are not good.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[waswan]

I think Rowie is told to do that. His natural game is not that.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

We have a few that are held back from playing their natural game, id back Rowie in to win it himself.
Jy Simpkin on the weekend had no regard for who was on him, his only concern was winning the ball.

From memory last time we played Carlton we were destroyed in the first half, because we had about 8 guys tagging.
The second half we decided to go head to head and we did well but it was all too late.
With their 2 fwds, we dont want to let their mids get on top, could get ugly very quick.

[wolftone57]

We have a few that are held back from playing their natural game, id back Rowie in to win it himself.
Jy Simpkin on the weekend had no regard for who was on him, his only concern was winning the ball.

From memory last time we played Carlton we were destroyed in the first half, because we had about 8 guys tagging.
The second half we decided to go head to head and we did well but it was all too late.
With their 2 fwds, we dont want to let their mids get on top, could get ugly very quick.

Agree. Let the mids loose to play their natural games.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

I think our coaching is overly structured and rigid. We get good players then we want to change them to suit our mould. If that is the case why not draft players who are in that mould? Mind you I think we would be an even worse team because players in that mould played 10 years ago.

Our coaches need to be more flexible. They need to use the talent at their disposal not try to change the talent to something they want. Use their abilities and incorporate that I your game plan. You can't lose just by trying. Trying to mould thrm to a style of play that is over 10 years old is not working.

We changed our play style 2 years ago and now we are back to what was happening before. Rowie is not a tagger he is a ball winner. Let him win ball. Blakey is not a KPP get him out of there and winning ball and distributing. He is in the way anyway. Stop trying to be fancy and get back to basic footy. Hard at the ball, hard at the man, hard to tackle. See ball, get ball, win clear. Think? Think? Don't bloody think just do. It's not an effing exam, it's footy. It's a simple game, so keep it simple.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

The wrap by Nathan Buckley says it all. Where are we? Injuries aside, we were smashed in the mids -20, less inside 50's, smashed in the HO, smashed in centre clearances (we only got 8 that is piss poor), beaten in tackles so they had more pressure on the player with ball, they had 10% more time in possession.

We were beaten in most pressure areas except contested possession, which we won by 5 which is neither here or there it is so close.

As to blaming inaccuracy for nearly losing. Will we continue to do that if we keep losing? Last year if we were inaccurate we would have so many shots it straightened up. We still may have scored as many points as goals but we kicked a winning score. OK we had a full contention of players. But even thrn we are incapable of kicking a difinitivewinning score. There seems to be a lack of desire or confidence in the group.

I am going to say this again. Losing becomes a habit. Psychologically, even a win like this is a loss because of the way we won. We are sitting right where we deserve to be. Will much improve with players coming back? Time will tell. Amartey will straighten us up a bit. But Buddy was on yesterday and we only managed 23 scoring shots.

14.9. One person says our inaccuracy hurt us early. OK. But to what do you put the rest of the match down to, especially the last quarter? Certainly not inaccuracy as we kicked 14.9. We have to stop finding excuses. Excuses are the purvey of weak minds. Find solutions not excuses. We are down on personnel find a way of using the personnel we have to scratch out a win. We play Blues next week. If thry flog is then we really are in a mess. The Blues are the most overrated team in the AFL. They have been extremely poor. Thry have even less room for excuse making than us. But we need to find a way. We need our players, like the lion in The Wizard of Oz, to find a heart. To dig deep. The coaches need to find the best way to go about winning with the personnel on hand. No more excuses Horse, solutions please.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

I was at the game and your talk of lack of desire is just not true. When i watched the replay, Leigh Montagna mentioned that we were ranked 2nd in the competition in terms of pressure. This is a fact. How many games have you seen live?

[dejavoodoo44]

Coaches votes:
10 Luke Parker (SYD)
7 Bailey Scott (NMFC)
7 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
2 Lance Franklin (SYD)
2 Chad Warner (SYD)
1 Todd Goldstein (NMFC)
1 Harry Sheezel (NMFC)

Seems about right. I thought Parker was clearly BOG. Vaguely surprised that Goldstein got a vote.

[Blood Fever]

Coaches votes:
10 Luke Parker (SYD)
7 Bailey Scott (NMFC)
7 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
2 Lance Franklin (SYD)
2 Chad Warner (SYD)
1 Todd Goldstein (NMFC)
1 Harry Sheezel (NMFC)

Seems about right. I thought Parker was clearly BOG. Vaguely surprised that Goldstein got a vote.

Fox stiff even if he butchered a couple of kicks in the last quarter.

[Nico]

I think Rowie is told to do that. His natural game is not that.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

That may so Wolfy, but that means we then have 2 on 3 to find the footy, because Rowy doesn't do a real good job because he's not looking where the footy is at.

[waswan]

Rowy is top 30 for Centre Bounce Attendances and 200th for Possessions at less than 16 a game...... And I dont think that is on him..... If he was ball chasing with those numbers, he should be in the 2s. This is the George Hewett Version 2 we didnt know we needed