Analysis Adelaide against the top teams

[Mattrox]

Maybe 6 <21 isn't enough when rebuilding after the loss of all our experienced stars, because not every young player works out.

It's almost as though we thought we were contending so were going all out to win games, thinking that the kids would get games when they were ready.

Rinse and repeat in 2011.

Rinse and repeat in 2012.

Rinse and repeat in 2013.

Rinse and repeat in 2014.

2015? Felt a bit different for a while but familiarity is creeping back in.

In 2010 I didn't really find many games where there were less than 6 under 21 yo. Most had more. And if you take into account the magic 50 game mark, the numbers were higher. In terms of playing senior players; for 2010, 2013, 2014, the number of younger players was often high. So I'd say it is nothing like we were going all out to win games. The first rounds of 2010 have a number of players under 20 games two. The theory doesn't stand up under scruitiny. The fact that the kids didn't work out and we subsequently lost draft picks makes it hard to replace the duds.

It's almost like in 2010 we tried to rebuild while we had Edwards and Macca still going around and failed.
Armstrong, Cook, Sloane, Walker, Petrenko, Sellar, Young, Schmidt, Davis, Gunston, Henderson, Jaensch, McKernan (under 20 gamers played) Keeping in mind Tippett had less than 50 games at the start of the year and Dangerfield was on 24 games...

Rinse and repeat in 2011.
McKernan, Davis, Henderson, Sloane, Smith, Jaensch, Martin, Cook, Luke Thompson, Wright, Jacobs, Gunston, Sellar, Moran, Talia

Rinse and repeat in 2012?

Rinse and repeat in 2013?

Rinse and repeat in 2014?

I didn't look at every game, not enough time. But the contention that we avoided playing kids to win at all costs does not stand up to scrutiny. Each game I looked at had a number for young or inexperienced players. To contend that we only played "old" players is completely incorrect. Had we played the kids that didn't work out in the long run for more games, would it have improved our position now? We could have fielded half a side of players under 20 games in 2010 but it would not mean we would have all those players as guns in our side today.

The argument is incorrect and based on perception and speculation rather than reality.

 

[Andrew P]

We can't beat a top team because our midfield as a unit, is ****ing deplorable. Sure we may have some individual stars, but as a unit we are rarely on song.

- We never seem to have anyone on the defensive side of the contest, it's see ball get ball.
- We can't spread
- We still can't tackle properly (has improved though)
- we can't run 2 ways
- we can't ****ing kick.

The battle is won in the midfield IMO, plain and simple. Occasionally we have the individual brilliance of some of our stars who put the team on their shoulders and the lesser teams are not a good enough 'unit' to overcome our top end players dragging us over the line. But when going up against the big boys, we fall to pieces through the midfield every god damn ****ing time. The good teams have 8-10 players rotating through who all know exactly what they're doing and execute it to plan. We have danger, or sometimes it's Sloane, or Douglas, or Thommo.

When all of them fire however, we look like a damn good football team. Go watch our round 1 fixture vs North and look at the movement and cohesion of our midfield, it's a sight for sore eyes. But it is a rare sight if anything. I sometimes sit back and just watch in awe at the Hawks players just rolling through the midfield in waves, they always have players in the right spot and are set up so well. Tigers and Sydney too. Yes they are also much better users of the ball and probably better decision makers too, but even when they muff a kick, they are always set up so well and their pressure is manic in their attempt to win the ball back.

Our midfield is our biggest weakness. Our defence is young and actually holds up quite well 1v1 for such an inexperienced unit. Our forwards are also decent at making something happen when they are on the end of "good" entries. However we don't apply enough pressure and allow entries into our defence under little to no pressure, and going the other way we dish up a steaming pile of s**t on a golden platter to the likes of Betts, Tex and JJ way too often.

I'm somewhat comfortable in saying that the intent is there from our players (bar hendo), but the cohesion is not. We play dumb football, and so much of our good work is too often in vein.

Spot on !

Once again we won the clearances against the Swans and how much did we get pantsed on the spread and time in possession and on the scoreboard so if i hear anymore bullshit about our centre square being the business because we win clearances then it shows how dumb some fans are .
Teams just to try nullify the Crows in the middle , happy to apply pressure and force a turnover to kill us on the spread .

Thompson can not run 2 ways , Dangerfield rarely does although this year has been slightly better , Sloane is not that quick although his desire is there .
Douglas tries but he is no speedstar , Mackay is just putty soft and nowhere near as quick as people think , the list goes on .

For a team with our biggest weakness being outside leg speed we sure do play an aggressive style of defense , expending way too much energy chasing and also hurting our skills when in possession which is not our strong suit . A switching zone with some bursts of 3/4 to full pressing would better suit the teams makeup as would doing similar to what the Tigers did early in the game last Friday . We tend to get killed in the first quarter where our lack of speed is exposed and we also need to hunt the opposition in the middle instead of trying to win every clearance . Thompson , Danger , Sloane can all tackle and soften the opposition in close , do this early absorb and then pick it up in the second . Chuck Laird in for a different look . We are see ball get ball and it kills us .

 

[Mike Smyth]

You shake up the organisation - get a new CEO - at least one new board member who understands what it takes to be successful in the AFL - a new coach - new assistants - use trade / FA / drafts to your advantage - don't do anything that will cost you draft picks ...

Then you need a bit of luck with injuries, a lot of hard work and sacrifice, and some patience.

We are on our way - we just hit a major bump with Walshy's passing - our fortunes will not change over-night, they will take a long term effort.

Look at the Hawks:

Year - Position / Played / Won / Drawn / Lost
2001 - 4 / 22 / 13 / 9
2002 - 10 / 22 / 11 / 11
2003 - 9 / 22 / 12 / 10
2004 - 15 / 22 / 4 / 18
2005 - 14 / 22 / 5 / 17
2006 - 11 / 22 / 9 / 13
2007 - 6 / 22 / 13 / 9
2008 - Premiers / 22 / 17 / 5
2009 - 9 / 22 / 9v13
2010 - 7 / 22 / 12 / 1 / 9
2011 - 3 / 22 / 18 / 4
2012 - Grand Finalist / 22 / 17 / 5
2013 - Premiers / 22 / 19 / 3
2014 - Premiers / 22 / 17 / 5

The hawks got buddy, hodge and roughhead with top 5 picks. I like hawthorns stragedy of raiding top line players from the weaker clubs even if it costs your 1st round draft pick.

 

[Mattrox]

Scanning though 2012, the argument can be supported; that we played more of the experienced players more often, as the numbers of less than 20 game players in any particular game went down over the course of the year.

However, we still managed to play a number...... I won't count Callinan as his vast experience at SANFL level counters things like rookie mistakes and 2nd year blues that younger players get. Martin (by this time he's not a "kid" anymore), Talia, Jenkins, Lynch, Smith, Smack, Kerridge, Shaw, Lyons Brown, Riley.

At the time, the selection argument was to get Riley more games or to see Kerridge play more.

We steered away from playing kids, maybe less injuries influenced this over previous years.

We did beat a top 4 side and were a top 4 side.

We certainly didn't rinse and repeat 2010 and 2011 - in terms of results or selection.

 

[Dangerousfield]

........ We are on our way - we just hit a major bump with Walshy's passing - our fortunes will not change over-night, they will take a long term effort.

Look at the Hawks:

Year - Position / Played / Won / Drawn / Lost
2001 - 4 / 22 / 13 / 9
2002 - 10 / 22 / 11 / 11
2003 - 9 / 22 / 12 / 10
2004 - 15 / 22 / 4 / 18
2005 - 14 / 22 / 5 / 17
2006 - 11 / 22 / 9 / 13
2007 - 6 / 22 / 13 / 9
2008 - Premiers / 22 / 17 / 5
2009 - 9 / 22 / 9v13
2010 - 7 / 22 / 12 / 1 / 9
2011 - 3 / 22 / 18 / 4
2012 - Grand Finalist / 22 / 17 / 5
2013 - Premiers / 22 / 19 / 3
2014 - Premiers / 22 / 17 / 5

Sorry, but that is simplistic to cite the Hawks rise. I'll tell you what they did that we can't/aren't doing. They drafted in a stack of guns, they traded in a stack of guns -
2001 - Hodge Pick 1
2004 - Roughhead Pick 2
2004 - Buddy Pick 4
2004 - Lewis Pick 7
2005 - Birchall Pick 14
2007 - Rioli Pick 12
Traded in/stole with their original drafted position
Hale Pick 7
McEvoy Pick 9
Frawley Pick 12
Burgoyne Pick 12
Gunston Pick 29
O'Rourke Pick 2

Anything there look similar to where we are at? Nope, certainly doesn't. Geelong profiles looks similar to Hawthorns so no surprise there either.

We are a middle of the table side with no real upside over any other side. Thanks Trigg

 

[baldandbroke]

Sorry, but that is simplistic to cite the Hawks rise. I'll tell you what they did that we can't/aren't doing. They drafted in a stack of guns, they traded in a stack of guns -
2001 - Hodge Pick 1
2004 - Roughhead Pick 2
2004 - Buddy Pick 4
2004 - Lewis Pick 7
2005 - Birchall Pick 14
2007 - Rioli Pick 12
Traded in/stole with their original drafted position
Hale Pick 7
McEvoy Pick 9
Frawley Pick 12
Burgoyne Pick 12
Gunston Pick 29
O'Rourke Pick 2

Anything there look similar to where we are at? Nope, certainly doesn't. Geelong profiles looks similar to Hawthorns so no surprise there either.

We are a middle of the table side with no real upside over any other side. Thanks Trigg

You mis-understand me.

I'm saying that even if we started this year with Walshy to head down the right path - it takes years of exactly the type of stuff you highlight to get to the top.

Our path will be different, but in no way is there an easy fix out there waiting for us.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Been a lot of talk about us being a young side - Average list age anyone?

1st Freo
2nd North
3rd Essendon - yikes old and no good
4th Hawthorn
5th Sydney
6th Geelong
7th Carlton - sad list
8th Adelaide

9th Richmond - top side
10th Melb
11th WCE - top side
12th Port - should be top side
13th Collingwood
14th St.Kilda
15th Brisbane
16th WB - wow, impressive this year
17th GCS
18th GWS - juggernaught with a bullet

So lets not think that we are rocketing up the table because we are a "young" side. Nor are we decimated by injuries any more than a number of other better performing sides. I know we all like to wear rose coloured glasses but the cold hard facts are our list is not good enough, not enough genuine game winners, too many non AFL standard players and no quick fix in sight.

We are however a whole lot better off than Carlton and Essendon who are destined for a long time in the cellar.

 

[baldandbroke]

Been a lot of talk about us being a young side - Average list age anyone?

1st Freo
2nd North
3rd Essendon - yikes old and no good
4th Hawthorn
5th Sydney
6th Geelong
7th Carlton - sad list
8th Adelaide

9th Richmond - top side
10th Melb
11th WCE - top side
12th Port - should be top side
13th Collingwood
14th St.Kilda
15th Brisbane
16th WB - wow, impressive this year
17th GCS
18th GWS - juggernaught with a bullet

So lets not think that we are rocketing up the table because we are a "young" side. Nor are we decimated by injuries any more than a number of other better performing sides. I know we all like to wear rose coloured glasses but the cold hard facts are our list is not good enough, not enough genuine game winners, too many non AFL standard players and no quick fix in sight.

We are however a whole lot better off than Carlton and Essendon who are destined for a long time in the cellar.

Average age is not a great stat. Number of players in certain age groups is better ... but this thread is about how we perform against top 4 sides, not our average age.

<EDIT> I can see how maybe comparing age profile to the better teams fits the thread, carry on!

 

[Mattrox]

Been a lot of talk about us being a young side - Average list age anyone?

1st Freo
2nd North
3rd Essendon - yikes old and no good
4th Hawthorn
5th Sydney
6th Geelong
7th Carlton - sad list
8th Adelaide

9th Richmond - top side
10th Melb
11th WCE - top side
12th Port - should be top side
13th Collingwood
14th St.Kilda
15th Brisbane
16th WB - wow, impressive this year
17th GCS
18th GWS - juggernaught with a bullet

So lets not think that we are rocketing up the table because we are a "young" side. Nor are we decimated by injuries any more than a number of other better performing sides. I know we all like to wear rose coloured glasses but the cold hard facts are our list is not good enough, not enough genuine game winners, too many non AFL standard players and no quick fix in sight.

We are however a whole lot better off than Carlton and Essendon who are destined for a long time in the cellar.

You need to look at the age playing each week.

To really have a good look you also need to look at the number of 26+yo playing each week to see how old the team is.

If Reilly is in the calculation it makes us seem older.

 

[Mattrox]

Oh yeah. Last year GC was the juggernaut with a bullet.

 

[Mike Smyth]

If we can trade ultra aggressively and get at least 2 years of top end talent I.e. Top 7 picks, we may be in the game come 2018.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Average age is not a great stat. Number of players in certain age groups is better ... but this thread is about how we perform against top 4 sides, not our average age.

You said "we are on our way" but I maintain we are unlikely to make progress against other sides above us on the table in the next say five years. To move up the table other sides need to come down. Then we are also going to be overtaken by GWS and GCS, and maybe St.Kilda. I'm not sure who other than North is falling back.

I only did the age table because so many posters seem to think we have a batch of young players who are going to propel us up the ladder. Again, we do not have a group of youngsters better than a host of other sides. Every side, other than Carlton and Essendon, have a similar sized or larger group of youngsters who have equally or more upside than we do. To think we have a better or larger group of talented kids is naïve. This years draft brings us a pick 9/10 and a pick 29/30 - woopee. Better bloody them Noble!

Want to know who does have a stack of very talented kids - GWS, a whole team of top 10 picks and their NEAFL side every week has 6-8 first rounders playing. We can only dream of such riches.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Oh yeah. Last year GC was the juggernaut with a bullet.

Not by me it wasn't. List analysis shows GWS has a hugely stronger list than GCS and it will only get stronger this year with two kids rated top 10 in their academy.

Bookmark this, GWS will be top four from 2017 and maybe even next year. They have had a really heavy injury list to their mature age players like Mumford and Davis this year.

 

[Dangerousfield]

If we can trade ultra aggressively and get at least 2 years of top end talent I.e. Top 7 picks, we may be in the game come 2018.

So what are your proposals to get these multiple top 7 picks?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

If Danger leaves maybe we will finally bite the bullet and go into full on tank mode.

 

[weneverland]

Young team with not enough experience and a lack of genuine pace through the middle are two massive factors holding us back.

I also think the players are psychologically exhausted after the last month. We were finally seeing some real progress under Walsh and Fagen but we've regressed since Walshy's death which isn't a huge surprise.

Hopfully Fagen and co can get everyone back on track, unfortuntely it probably won't happen properly until the preseason when the spotlight isn't on football so much and we aren't having to prepare for a match every week.

Were we? How was our form different from the last 6 years. This year, were we still in the middle of the pack. Had we beaten any good sides? Or did we just spank those sides that were below us? After all the rhetoric I think little had yet changed. Even if Walshy was still with us I think we would have struggled to make the finals. The sad thing is, the draft sanctions have yet to bight.

 

[Wright Away]

Need to turn over the footy department, which I'm sure would have happened at the end of this year if Walsh was still with us. Still, need to do it anyway with the new coach. Find new assistants.

Clarke - gone
Campo - gone
Noble - gone

I'm sure there are more.

 

[baldandbroke]

You said "we are on our way" but I maintain we are unlikely to make progress against other sides above us on the table in the next say five years. To move up the table other sides need to come down. Then we are also going to be overtaken by GWS and GCS, and maybe St.Kilda. I'm not sure who other than North is falling back.

I only did the age table because so many posters seem to think we have a batch of young players who are going to propel us up the ladder. Again, we do not have a group of youngsters better than a host of other sides. Every side, other than Carlton and Essendon, have a similar sized or larger group of youngsters who have equally or more upside than we do. To think we have a better or larger group of talented kids is naïve. This years draft brings us a pick 9/10 and a pick 29/30 - woopee. Better bloody them Noble!

Want to know who does have a stack of very talented kids - GWS, a whole team of top 10 picks and their NEAFL side every week has 6-8 first rounders playing. We can only dream of such riches.

What makes you think we are not on our way - you have to start somewhere ... It is hard enough to work out who will make the top 4 in the next season - let alone who will "go up" and who will "go down", ask Port.

I hate this movement that is coming from some posters on here that is "we are back to the same old AFC" - because Wright and Mackay are getting games. We cannot judge much yet, it is too soon. This size turn-around takes time. We are changing, we are shifting - but it will not happen as quick as we would like.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Need to turn over the footy department, which I'm sure would have happened at the end of this year if Walsh was still with us. Still, need to do it anyway with the new coach. Find new assistants.

Clarke - gone
Campo - gone
Noble - gone

I'm sure there are more.

Chapman

 

[Dangerousfield]

What makes you think we are not on our way - you have to start somewhere ... It is hard enough to work out who will make the top 4 in the next season - let alone who will "go up" and who will "go down", ask Port.

I hate this movement that is coming from some posters on here that is "we are back to the same old AFC" - because Wright and Mackay are getting games. We cannot judge much yet, it is too soon. This size turn-around takes time. We are changing, we are shifting - but it will not happen as quick as we would like.

I am just pointing out that I don't see how we are going to make progress against other sides that appear to have better lists than us now and appear to have at least the same amount of quality youngsters coming through. A positive for us is other than Thommo and Pods, we don't have any retirements for 2-3 years so the core stays together. A lot of that core are just role players though, not enough game changers. I am not a prophet of doom but I just can't see from thoroughly analysing all teams lists from where we get our extra upside lift to get us into a serious finals team.

 

[Mike Smyth]

So what are your proposals to get these multiple top 7 picks?

Play guys like grigg, Atkins, m crouch, Lyons and other youngsters ahead of guys like McKay, wright, martin, vb and possible Henderson. If we have to finish around the bottom 6-8 for a few years whilst we get much needed game time into the legs of the kids then so be it. One step back, hopefully, two steps forward.

We have a good core of quality players we just need some quality depth and more talented/skilled players. If we could sneak a premiership (unlikely ) in 2017 or 2018 before the gws and gc juggernaughts start their domination.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Chapman

Harper

 

[Wayne Swan]

Interesting read guys, seems like a lot of you want a good clean out of the old boys club?

I notice there's still ill feeling towards those involved in Tippettgate, and with good reason too, you can never replace those missed high draft picks and wasn't one of them about pick 6 or 7 - ouch!

We're feeling the strain of the vindictive trade ban slapped on us (for not breaking any rules) by the VFL, I mean AFL.

Good luck with Dangerfield, I hope he stays.

 

[King Elvis]

We can't beat a top team because our midfield as a unit, is ****ing deplorable. Sure we may have some individual stars, but as a unit we are rarely on song.

- We never seem to have anyone on the defensive side of the contest, it's see ball get ball.
- We can't spread
- We still can't tackle properly (has improved though)
- we can't run 2 ways
- we can't ****ing kick.

The battle is won in the midfield IMO, plain and simple. Occasionally we have the individual brilliance of some of our stars who put the team on their shoulders and the lesser teams are not a good enough 'unit' to overcome our top end players dragging us over the line. But when going up against the big boys, we fall to pieces through the midfield every god damn ****ing time. The good teams have 8-10 players rotating through who all know exactly what they're doing and execute it to plan. We have danger, or sometimes it's Sloane, or Douglas, or Thommo.

When all of them fire however, we look like a damn good football team. Go watch our round 1 fixture vs North and look at the movement and cohesion of our midfield, it's a sight for sore eyes. But it is a rare sight if anything. I sometimes sit back and just watch in awe at the Hawks players just rolling through the midfield in waves, they always have players in the right spot and are set up so well. Tigers and Sydney too. Yes they are also much better users of the ball and probably better decision makers too, but even when they muff a kick, they are always set up so well and their pressure is manic in their attempt to win the ball back.

Our midfield is our biggest weakness. Our defence is young and actually holds up quite well 1v1 for such an inexperienced unit. Our forwards are also decent at making something happen when they are on the end of "good" entries. However we don't apply enough pressure and allow entries into our defence under little to no pressure, and going the other way we dish up a steaming pile of s**t on a golden platter to the likes of Betts, Tex and JJ way too often.

I'm somewhat comfortable in saying that the intent is there from our players (bar hendo), but the cohesion is not. We play dumb football, and so much of our good work is too often in vein.

This is why Campo cannot be considered for the senior role.

 

[Mattrox]

What makes you think we are not on our way - you have to start somewhere ... It is hard enough to work out who will make the top 4 in the next season - let alone who will "go up" and who will "go down", ask Port.

I hate this movement that is coming from some posters on here that is "we are back to the same old AFC" - because Wright and Mackay are getting games. We cannot judge much yet, it is too soon. This size turn-around takes time. We are changing, we are shifting - but it will not happen as quick as we would like.

If we look at the age profile of Sloane, Laird, Smith, Talia, Brown, Walker and Dangerfield if we keep him and add 2 years experience then we are talking an age profile closer to contending. Dougie, Sauce and Betts will be the elder statesmen. Crouch, Crouch, Cameron, Lever will be the 50 gamers

Jaensch and Jenkins in thr supportibg cast.

We need to recruit well for youth to fome through and pick up a FA or Trade to fill immediate needs.

We have a foundation.

We are qubbling over the selection of two players. This is not going to hinder our chances to build the list and contend. It's a short term blip on the radar.