Leppa's third year.

Remove this Banner Ad

SizeMatters said:
Anyone think our midfield is overrated? Why are we so poor in key areas such as clearances, contested possessions and now even tackles? Most of those stats come from the midfield... I know we haven't had the full strength midfield in but they are now the core (Rich, Redden, Hanley Rockliff and Beams) are into their mid 20s and should really be working together better than they should be. On paper they seem like a great fit especially when you throw in Zorko, Bundy and Robinson, but overall it's just not working. RRR haven't worked for 4 years....

I'll give it to the end of the season with new players and new coaches but it feels like I'll be saying the same thing next year. Leppa comes in with a known defensive mind set from his Richmond days and honestly our mids are still front runners.
Click to expand...

We're certainly rated so far on potential and the individual parts rather then how they have come together as a whole, however we really haven't seem them being able to work together yet, there's always been decent parts missing or building up after injury. We've had absolutely no continuity in our midfield setup with the one guy who has played all the games in there completely new to the club and how we want to setup. Personally I tended to think that given the additional personnel we were always going to take a season to get the combos and understanding right in our midfield setup. I'm just worried its going to take a bit longer now given we're over halfway through the season and we're still yet to actually have our preferred midfield setup (or even our second best option) even play a single game together. Lets hope that when they do they gel quickly and use the offseason well.
 
lukiuslion said:
Good point.
Click to expand...

That point notwithstanding, the Bulldogs and Richmond are good examples to think about.

I think Port has skewed expectations a little bit about what the transition from bad to good looks like, noting they've fallen off again this year. My thinking on them, which is not novel, is that they followed a simple gameplan and executed it well: allowing for a sharp improvement then a sharp decline as teams figured them out.

It will be interesting to see how the Dogs progress, but it feels to me like the growth this year has been pretty sharp and they depend very heavily on manic pressure and Bob Murphy's ball use. It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar trajectory to Port.

Richmond on the other hand seem to be grinding their way up the table, oscillating a bit year to year but on an upward trajectory. Recently they seem to shift quite well between fast and controlled play, which is something our players have spoken a bit about ("need to slow it down" etc). I think it also makes them pretty flexible, and has contributed to them beating some very good sides. I'd also expect that type of development allows for sustained, consistent success, since it is a bit more versatile and there is not one single tactic to work out.

I think some of the struggles we have had, where we shift from being completely in control to looking like we aren't defending at all, come from trying to develop the slower, measured style of play. We saw it a bit against GWS, and saw some of our faster play against Adelaide and in the second half of last year. I think it's pretty important we develop both things, so we don't wind up beating mediocre teams with quick ball movement (second half of last year) then running up against a good, disciplined side like Freo and getting belted because we only have one workable strategy.

Overall what I mean is that I'd like to see sharp improvements in results, but if we're developing both sides of our game and we see them both with more consistency, I think you need to allow time with a consistent setup to grind up the ladder. I'd be more worried if we just played fast all the time (or slow all the time) and won 9 games but lost in the same way to the same good teams.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ummmm..... Mr. Whiting how the * was last season a dream first season? We got smashed by over 100 twice plus there was the Freo game.

It was a dream off season with trade week but it was a nightmare season.

After a dream first season against all expectations, things have got tougher for Justin Leppitsch second time around. Once again he's been smashed by injuries, with key pillars Pearce Hanley, Tom Rockliff and Daniel Merrett missing large chunks of action, and the club having just 27 players to choose from at one stage. Injuries aside, the Lions have struggled though. Leppitsch has seen only glimpses of his preferred game style, and despite his outward patience, has clearly been frustrated at times. He still has one of the youngest lists in the AFL on his hands and has had success with moving Marco Paparone to defence, Lewy Taylor to a wing, and leaving Dan McStay as a key forward. Leppitsch is contracted for another full season and is likely to be extended, but with players returning from injury in the final 10 weeks, he'd like a few wins to take any hint of pressure away.

Contracted until: End of 2016
Pressure rating: 5/10
- Michael Whiting
Click to expand...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-01/midyear-coach-ratings
 
Yeah strange he considered last season to be a dream, don't forget the Norf game as well in Etihad...had 8 scoring shots and lucky not to lose by 150 :$
 
A lot of people point to Bomber Thompson as the example of 'persisting with a coach', however, his case in point is a little different. They did persist, but much more in the 'can he get us there because we are there abouts' kinder way (it would be like sacking Hardwick now), rather than the 'is he even capable' way...

He took a team that had won 8 and 9 games in 98 and 99 and led them to 12 victories in 2000. He then had a drop off to 9 wins in 2009 (still far better than Hardwick and McCartney's first years) before mustering up an 11 win season the year after. There was then a significant drop off in 2003 to 7 wins - but then, there was a massive bump to 16 wins in 2004.

whilst he had his ups and downs, he was swinging from Finals, to just out of finals, to a drop to 7 wins.. to top 4.. to just outside the 8 - I dare say we would persist with that sort of coach ATM too.

Rarely, if ever - do you see a coach take over a team at re-build stage, who don't get that spike straight away (ala Hinkely, Beverage, voss) who instead have a string of really bad seasons to start with, and no obvious signs of improvement - who then 3-4 years later start to climb from the rubble and become a top 4 coach. By then they get sacked and someone comes in a reaps the rewards of their painful rebuild.

I want us to persist with Leppa but history would suggest unless he gets his 10 wins next season, that is how it will play out for him. Maybe we can buck the trend and say, nope - this is our ten year Guy and we are sticking with it, but it can be hard to maintain morale and relationships when the losers scaring builds up over time.

Someone mentioned persisting with Clarkson as an example on the TV - he went 5, 9, 14, flag! lol
 
Ironmonger said:
5/10?

What on earth would 2/10 look like?
Click to expand...

Apparently Luke Beveridge and Adam Simpson, so having your team massively outperforming preseason expectations.

1/10 would probably be taking your team from wooden spoon to 1st on the ladder.
 
dlanod said:
Apparently Luke Beveridge and Adam Simpson, so having your team massively outperforming preseason expectations.

1/10 would probably be taking your team from wooden spoon to 1st on the ladder.
Click to expand...

Ah, it's a pressure rating rather than a mark for the first half of the year. That makes more sense.

Carry on.

EDIT: Actually, having read some of the ratings, they still make no sense.

These filler pieces that Afl.com.au do are often pretty useless, I find. Like the abysmal Sliding Doors, they have restrictive structures that just get in the way of proper analysis and sometimes leave their writers floundering for something meaningful to say. Which is a shame, because there seem to be a few quite intelligent people on their staff.
 
Kevvo said:
That point notwithstanding, the Bulldogs and Richmond are good examples to think about.

I think Port has skewed expectations a little bit about what the transition from bad to good looks like, noting they've fallen off again this year. My thinking on them, which is not novel, is that they followed a simple gameplan and executed it well: allowing for a sharp improvement then a sharp decline as teams figured them out.

It will be interesting to see how the Dogs progress, but it feels to me like the growth this year has been pretty sharp and they depend very heavily on manic pressure and Bob Murphy's ball use. It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar trajectory to Port.

Richmond on the other hand seem to be grinding their way up the table, oscillating a bit year to year but on an upward trajectory. Recently they seem to shift quite well between fast and controlled play, which is something our players have spoken a bit about ("need to slow it down" etc). I think it also makes them pretty flexible, and has contributed to them beating some very good sides. I'd also expect that type of development allows for sustained, consistent success, since it is a bit more versatile and there is not one single tactic to work out.

I think some of the struggles we have had, where we shift from being completely in control to looking like we aren't defending at all, come from trying to develop the slower, measured style of play. We saw it a bit against GWS, and saw some of our faster play against Adelaide and in the second half of last year. I think it's pretty important we develop both things, so we don't wind up beating mediocre teams with quick ball movement (second half of last year) then running up against a good, disciplined side like Freo and getting belted because we only have one workable strategy.

Overall what I mean is that I'd like to see sharp improvements in results, but if we're developing both sides of our game and we see them both with more consistency, I think you need to allow time with a consistent setup to grind up the ladder. I'd be more worried if we just played fast all the time (or slow all the time) and won 9 games but lost in the same way to the same good teams.
Click to expand...

Great post - arguably one of the best posters around here IMO.
 
Fatcat08 said:
We're certainly rated so far on potential and the individual parts rather then how they have come together as a whole, however we really haven't seem them being able to work together yet, there's always been decent parts missing or building up after injury. We've had absolutely no continuity in our midfield setup with the one guy who has played all the games in there completely new to the club and how we want to setup. Personally I tended to think that given the additional personnel we were always going to take a season to get the combos and understanding right in our midfield setup. I'm just worried its going to take a bit longer now given we're over halfway through the season and we're still yet to actually have our preferred midfield setup (or even our second best option) even play a single game together. Lets hope that when they do they gel quickly and use the offseason well.
Click to expand...
Look at our disposal numbers this year. Beams has almost 100 more than anyone else. Taylor(a 2nd year player) and Martin(a ruckman) are next on the list.
Kevvo said:
That point notwithstanding, the Bulldogs and Richmond are good examples to think about.

I think Port has skewed expectations a little bit about what the transition from bad to good looks like, noting they've fallen off again this year. My thinking on them, which is not novel, is that they followed a simple gameplan and executed it well: allowing for a sharp improvement then a sharp decline as teams figured them out.

It will be interesting to see how the Dogs progress, but it feels to me like the growth this year has been pretty sharp and they depend very heavily on manic pressure and Bob Murphy's ball use. It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar trajectory to Port.

Richmond on the other hand seem to be grinding their way up the table, oscillating a bit year to year but on an upward trajectory. Recently they seem to shift quite well between fast and controlled play, which is something our players have spoken a bit about ("need to slow it down" etc). I think it also makes them pretty flexible, and has contributed to them beating some very good sides. I'd also expect that type of development allows for sustained, consistent success, since it is a bit more versatile and there is not one single tactic to work out.

I think some of the struggles we have had, where we shift from being completely in control to looking like we aren't defending at all, come from trying to develop the slower, measured style of play. We saw it a bit against GWS, and saw some of our faster play against Adelaide and in the second half of last year. I think it's pretty important we develop both things, so we don't wind up beating mediocre teams with quick ball movement (second half of last year) then running up against a good, disciplined side like Freo and getting belted because we only have one workable strategy.

Overall what I mean is that I'd like to see sharp improvements in results, but if we're developing both sides of our game and we see them both with more consistency, I think you need to allow time with a consistent setup to grind up the ladder. I'd be more worried if we just played fast all the time (or slow all the time) and won 9 games but lost in the same way to the same good teams.
Click to expand...
I said something similar in the gameplan thread a while ago. The question is whether teaching a style of play that can be consistently competitive against the best sides at the expense of immediate results will be more successful than seeing how far you can get employing a simpler, more direct strategy that may become less effective over time and making changes when needed.
I really do think our style of play can be very effective if we can start to execute it more consistently. We've seen maybe five or six quarters in which I can say we've got it right and got results so far this year. But is it too much for our young side? I don't know. Hard to come to any definite conclusions when you have so many important players missing for long periods of time.
 
I also wonder whether our physical preparation will actually start to look shrewd once (if?) the league changes to an 80 rotation cap in the interchange - hopefully next season. Of course that is assuming that my theory is correct about why we seem so light and weak right now... and then if we have gambled right and making the transition in advance gives us any advantage while everyone else has to change their whole training protocol in a much shorter space of time there could be a huge turn-around.

Or that could just be my rose-coloured glasses assuming that being light and weak is by design rather than having woeful strength and conditioning staff.

So far I think our clearances have definitely improved this year but we are not damaging enough once the ball is on the outside. Our contested possessions and tackling being so poor seem to be a result of that lack of physical strength.

Whether Leppa even gets a chance next year is still dependant on whether we can take the effort against Adelaide and repeat it in the majority of our games in the run in. If the foot comes off the pedal in the playing groups intensity just because external pressure drops off than Leppa isn't doing enough internally in my opinion to have the boys up for it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

IN relation to your post above Kev (forgot to reply) -

Another thing which ties into 'expectations' and coaching in general, and it's something That Gerard W pointed out on 360 at the start of the season, is there is an overwhelming expectation in the football world that development is strictly 'linear' and upward. meaning if you don't consistently improve in the upward direction over 3-4 year eventuating in a flag, your'e doomed, the window is closed, heads need to roll. The Tigers are a perfect example at how you might win 9 in a row to end one season and lose 5 of the first seven the next year, while you implement a new game plan, learn to deal with new pressures and expectations, get used to your new line coach, or suffer some injuries, but that doesn't mean you have gone backwards - it means you are experiencing a dip and will resume your climb after that period, going back to go forward I suppose.

It's like with Port now, all of a sudden Hinkley doesen't look like such a messiah, but it may just be they need to miss the finals this year, re-program in the off season, and they will come out and win 11 of there first 12 games in 2016.

Maybe that's out journey, we won 6 games, had the big win away againts the pies, everything looked great - maybe this is our 'terrible two' season? The expectation is if you win 6 one year you have to win 10 the next to be on track, and if you don't you have gone backwards and the future is bleak - hopefully although Leppas assent hasn't been linear so far, this is a dip and it is still possible that we are playing finals in his 4th and 5th years as coach.
 
Fatcat08 said:
We're certainly rated so far on potential and the individual parts rather then how they have come together as a whole, however we really haven't seem them being able to work together yet, there's always been decent parts missing or building up after injury. We've had absolutely no continuity in our midfield setup with the one guy who has played all the games in there completely new to the club and how we want to setup. Personally I tended to think that given the additional personnel we were always going to take a season to get the combos and understanding right in our midfield setup. I'm just worried its going to take a bit longer now given we're over halfway through the season and we're still yet to actually have our preferred midfield setup (or even our second best option) even play a single game together. Lets hope that when they do they gel quickly and use the offseason well.
Click to expand...
I agree but I was also looking at past seasons before we had Beams etc brought in this season. RRR on paper look like they would work but they really didn't do that well. Individually they bring something unique to the midfield group and when Zorko and Hanley were playing more midfield minutes they added the speed. I hope Leppa can turn this around when we get full team on the track and the midfield group working the new blokes games out. I am stumped as to why we are so poor for so long with a very reasonable midfield group the past few years.
 
lukiuslion said:
IN relation to your post above Kev (forgot to reply) -

Another thing which ties into 'expectations' and coaching in general, and it's something That Gerard W pointed out on 360 at the start of the season, is there is an overwhelming expectation in the football world that development is strictly 'linear' and upward. meaning if you don't consistently improve in the upward direction over 3-4 year eventuating in a flag, your'e doomed, the window is closed, heads need to roll. The Tigers are a perfect example at how you might win 9 in a row to end one season and lose 5 of the first seven the next year, while you implement a new game plan, learn to deal with new pressures and expectations, get used to your new line coach, or suffer some injuries, but that doesn't mean you have gone backwards - it means you are experiencing a dip and will resume your climb after that period, going back to go forward I suppose.

It's like with Port now, all of a sudden Hinkley doesen't look like such a messiah, but it may just be they need to miss the finals this year, re-program in the off season, and they will come out and win 11 of there first 12 games in 2016.

Maybe that's out journey, we won 6 games, had the big win away againts the pies, everything looked great - maybe this is our 'terrible two' season? The expectation is if you win 6 one year you have to win 10 the next to be on track, and if you don't you have gone backwards and the future is bleak - hopefully although Leppas assent hasn't been linear so far, this is a dip and it is still possible that we are playing finals in his 4th and 5th years as coach.
Click to expand...

I think most supporters have a fair idea on whether we are improving regardless of win. 2014 was a clear step back on '13 and this year has been another backwards step as we fail 9 out of every 10 weeks to play a gameplan that will make us competitive.

I have yet to see anything under Leppa to indicate we will ever be able to compete with decent teams. That needs to change next season or he's a goner.
 
lukiuslion said:
IN relation to your post above Kev (forgot to reply) -

Another thing which ties into 'expectations' and coaching in general, and it's something That Gerard W pointed out on 360 at the start of the season, is there is an overwhelming expectation in the football world that development is strictly 'linear' and upward. meaning if you don't consistently improve in the upward direction over 3-4 year eventuating in a flag, your'e doomed, the window is closed, heads need to roll. The Tigers are a perfect example at how you might win 9 in a row to end one season and lose 5 of the first seven the next year, while you implement a new game plan, learn to deal with new pressures and expectations, get used to your new line coach, or suffer some injuries, but that doesn't mean you have gone backwards - it means you are experiencing a dip and will resume your climb after that period, going back to go forward I suppose.

It's like with Port now, all of a sudden Hinkley doesen't look like such a messiah, but it may just be they need to miss the finals this year, re-program in the off season, and they will come out and win 11 of there first 12 games in 2016.
Click to expand...

This is such an important point. It's this expectation of linear improvement that has led to wildly unrealistic expectations for the Suns, and for that matter the large number of people who still seem to believe GWS will make the eight this year.

Another great example is the Bulldogs' 'disappointing' 2014 season. And you can bet your life St Kilda in 2016 will be the next team about whom the AFL media will expect big improvement.

But I can't really buy in to your conclusion. I think the problem with the expectation of linearity is that it allows people to make predictions based on an easily understandable narrative, without doing the detailed analysis. There are a lot of different points of view on this board, but my opinion is that even at a micro level the picture looks pretty bleak. Not only are our results poor, but many of our most talented players aren't progressing as we'd like.
 
Ironmonger said:
This is such an important point. It's this expectation of linear improvement that has led to wildly unrealistic expectations for the Suns, and for that matter the large number of people who still seem to believe GWS will make the eight this year.

Another great example is the Bulldogs' 'disappointing' 2014 season. And you can bet your life St Kilda in 2016 will be the next team about whom the AFL media will expect big improvement.

But I can't really buy in to your conclusion. I think the problem with the expectation of linearity is that it allows people to make predictions based on an easily understandable narrative, without doing the detailed analysis. There are a lot of different points of view on this board, but my opinion is that even at a micro level the picture looks pretty bleak. Not only are our results poor, but many of our most talented players aren't progressing as we'd like.
Click to expand...

Narr I agree, I threw that it there to keep it relevant to the convo, but as I was typing it I was thinking it doesen't really apply much to Leppa - It's hard to even use or apply the linear example, because the line hasn't even really started to move upward yet - infact the pen hasn't really hit the paper. I suppose it was more in relation to expectations and coaches in general, it has really stood out to me lately.
 
Mr Ripper said:
Would have been the worst finalist in living memory, though, and only there by default.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Carlton beat Richmond and we couldn't have played much worse than North the year before or Essendon in 09.
 
Balony_pony16 said:
He took over a team that was damn close to playing finals... if in 3 years we are still bottom then he goes
Click to expand...

This is true - funny how you think of him as taking over a 'basket case' and or a 'total rebuild prospect', when in actual fact we where going along pretty nicely.

That year did involve several massive comebacks, 5 wins to the expansion teams or the Dees, a terrible percentage and he did inherit an ageing list, the remainder of which had just been gutted by losing an entire generation of first class talent, a terrible age profile and limited to no Key position prospects.

Having said that, we are no better off now, to then - in terms of list balance really. sign. time this is going to take time.
 
Balony_pony16 said:
He took over a team that was damn close to playing finals... if in 3 years we are still bottom then he goes
Click to expand...

Voss's side 'nearly' made the finals with:

- 4-5 years with a gameplan
- a key forward
- a more experienced list who arguably had hit a glass ceiling with the talent available to them
- 5 extra 2nd/3rd year players who moved at the end of his tenure
- a team getting booted out of finals
- two expansion teams within their first few years.

I'm not sure I agree on the lack of improvement amongst our players either. Rocky has reached AA under Leppa's coaching (our first AA player in yonks), Stef Martin has had a career renaissance and a lot of the other players who have had form dips have simultaneously battled injury issues: Rich a prolonged one and Redden the first of his career. More recently, Paparone and Robertson have showed great signs of improvement.

For sure there have been some senior players who haven't performed as expected. Zorko and Leuey come to mind, but again, Leuey has battled ongoing injury issues and the loss of his primary spot to someone who must surely be in the top 5 rucks in the comp. Mayes hasn't come on as hoped, but other than that there haven't been too many dramatic cases of regression. Mostly I think the team balance has suffered from the loss of experienced KPPs.

Either way, we'll enter next year withwith an extra pre-season and a lot more guys in the 30-50 game bracket as a result of these last two years. I agree that on that basis alone, we should expect some improvement.
 
'Nearly made the finals' arguments have always been pretty weak.

The above things Kevvo mentions were happening (very special year).

It's almost like saying we should've employed Mark Harvey as head coach because he was the one who took us to within two kicks of the finals. Forgetting also that Ross Lyon played a terrible Fremantle side because he thought he was safe of getting a home final, and that's the only reason that his team almost lost.
 
Even if we didn't 'nearly make the finals' we were a kick away from being 11 wins and 11 losses having beat the number 2 team twice. It ended up being a pretty decent season. Four 10 goal losses was pretty bad but 3 wins against top 8 teams (including Essendon) was good. Definitely a far better result than the last 1.5 seasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ZoBlitz
  • Sticky
2024 Player of the Year Leaderboard
Replies
5
Views
834
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz
Nathan Barley
Goal of the Year
Replies
7
Views
594
martinson
martinson
ZoBlitz
Women's Footy 2023 Women's Player of the Year Leaderboard
Replies
18
Views
2K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz
dlanod
  • Poll
Autopsy Half yearly review
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
martinson
martinson
Son of Superboot
Mark and Goal of the year
Replies
2
Views
608
McIvor
McIvor
ZoBlitz
2023 Player of the Year Leaderboard
2
Replies
45
Views
9K
DERRINALPHIL
DERRINALPHIL
S
Review Half yearly update
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
130
Views
6K
briztoon
briztoon

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top