tesselate_
Team Captain
- Jul 27, 2014
- 532
- 916
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
This wasn't an easy game to review. Through a conflation of poor kicking, decision-making and forward instinct, we had one of our most inefficient performances of the season with regards to converting Inside 50s to goals. When you sprinkle in some woeful skills in the backhalf, you get one of our worst performances in recent memory.
Wasteful would be the word I'd use to describe the first term. Going forward we didn't have the composure or the awareness to put the ball into space; too many entries were a low-percentage bomb deep to a contest when there was a shorter pass on.
Fasolo seemed to be the only forward who was prepared to lead into the space, and was our most threatening target early in the match. There was a good little passage there in the first where Greenwood dropped it into a hole in Melbourne's defense and Fas ran onto it. But the problem was, two of his marks->shots on goal were just behinds.
We broke through their defense on a few occasions in the first, and each time, we either weren't prepared to retain possession until something better opened up, or we'd use it inefficiently.
1. Clean gather from Sidebottom, pass to DeGoey racing up the centre square line, he has Moore running ahead of him, who could double back into the space, or he has Fasolo running alongside him. He makes an errant handpass to Fasolo, who has to stop to collect, and it turns into a stoppage.
2. Won a contest on D50, burst forward through Sidebottom, got it to Varcoe on the forward flank. What happened next was confusing. Varcoe handpassed to Dwyer, who, instead of having a shot, passes to the wrong side of our forward there, ie, to the Melbourne advantage. Varcoe should've centred it.
In the second term in particular, unless Melbourne were able to move it quickly from a turnover and kick it long , I thought our zone really locked them down. They were a couple of terrible instances of them slicing us up through the middle. The problem is when they win a contest on one side they'll switch the ball quickly to the opposite flank and run forward. We just don't seem to be quick enough to implement any sort of zone or fill the hole at all.
When they had to move the ball slowly they were pushed up the boundary and had trouble finding targets from there. To prove this, you'd have a look at Greenwood intercepting a kick from Gawn and finding Varcoe loose in the forward 50, as well as Dwyer chopping one off, handpassing to the running Crisp, but Crisp kicked to Adams 1v1 instead of a lone Pendlebury.
We had a good burst in the third, but fell away in the last. I think we had 9? effective kicks in the last quarter. On top of that, we just lost all sense of composure. Even 5 minutes into the quarter, two consecutive kickins were long and up the guts, and when we'd win the contested ball from the kick-in Adams and De Goey would bomb it as far forward as they could to be swept up by the loose Melbourne were playing behind the ball. The ball would just come right back in.
Our centre clearance ascendancy was nullified by Melbourne's loose, and with an undersized defense that just inflates the number of forward entries without reward. We just didn't look like scoring. All composure seemed to vanish and we were casually jogging into position.
Dane Swan
Best on ground. I don't think Swan's output is a good reflection of his ability. Particularly last week, he would outbody and accelerate past his opponent at the centre clearances on multiple times, but our ruckmen weren't able to put it to his advantage. Much of the same story this week, which was a shame. He still found plenty of the ball, uses his experience to get into the damaging positions on the outside at a contested ball, very much like a Sam Mitchell from Hawthorn.
Levi Greenwood
Thought he was one of our best. His physicality was very important on a day where we lost a few of the hitouts; he was able to halve contests and prevent a Melbourne break. 9 tackles says it all. He reads the play well in a centre clearance situation, and he has the physical strength to block and outbody. He made a few good forward passes that stood out to me, there was one put into space before Moore that would've been impossible to defend against, in addition to the Fasolo one aforementioned.
Taylor Adams
Similar to Greenwood around the clearances, but Adams kicking wasn't much yesterday. He'd win centre clearances, but I struggle to recall a kick that created a really menacing, effective forward entry.
His kicking wasn't great around the ground either. See below:
Instead of dropping it into space in front of that leading Pie, he centres it to Greenwood. And while it works out okay in the end, it works out because Melbourne leave a hole in their defense for Fas to lead into. A better team would've closed that down and Greenwood would've been shooting from 55m, or putting it high to the square.
Scott Pendlebury
Had a shaky start, fumbled on a few occasions and missed a critical tackle. Melbourne were clearly targeting him, he was being tackled and dumped as soon as he got it. I'm not sure he handled it well. His roving was good, as usual, but he didn't find enough of the ball and create enough play to atone for his mistakes.
Tom Langdon
His kickin work was poor. Two of the earliest kick-ins he clearly took the wrong option, Melbourne goals resulting from both. First instance below:
Has the man just 45 degrees to the right, then the target long on the wing there can lead inwards, but instead he elects to kick to a two on two were Melbourne players are in better position to get there first.
Has much the same play on the next kick-in and elects to take it:
...Except he puts too much height on the kick to the target coming down the right, it gets spoilt, and Melbourne goal.
When you're struggling to score and you cough up easy goals like this, it's crushing to team morale.
Travis Varcoe
When we started to hit the scoreboard in the second, it was Varcoe making things happen. Has the most awareness to sneak forward into dangerous positions and hurt the opposition. Is a constant feature of running rebound, tackles hard as always. Ball use wasn't as clean as I've come to expect, though. In the second term, Fasolo wins a one-on-one contest forward of centre, puts inside 50 to Varcoe, who misses a pass to De Goey. Noticed a few times he had a shorter pass on when he went high to the square.
Jordan DeGoey
Thought he was a bit flat. He struggled to get into the game after half-time and his ball use left much to be desired.
Steele Sidebottom
On fire early, was involved with a lot of play, had 21 touches to half-time. Got some clean gathers off the ground that I think I mentioned, when we looked dangerous running forward early it was often Sidebottom engineering the play. Was close to BoG for us early, I'd say, was able to get into those important outside positions to receive a contested ball.
He only had the 5 touches after that though, Melbourne moved Cross onto him in a lockdown role and all that outside ball dried up for him.
He took a really good mark inside 50 though.
Jack Crisp
He was good. Generated a lot of run, got plenty of the ball, drove us inside 50 six times.
Grundy and Witts
We were well-beaten in the hitouts until Gawn visibly began to tire. Was pretty disappointed with Witts in particular; when he does win a tap, it's not really to anybody's advantage. Swan does some great work in the centre bounces and Witts wastes a lot of his efforts. And when you have the opposition number having a real influence in the contested marking stakes, for Witts to take zero just isn't good enough. Didn't notice Grundy a great deal around the ground, but he made some effective taps. I'm no ruck expert, but I think he jumps too early in the centre.
Alex Fasolo
As discussed earlier, was the shining light forward early. Had the opportunity to kick a bag if he'd kicked straight; 3 goals is a good return. His forward pressure was good, I don't recall him doing anything wrong apart from missing some shots. Very strong overhead mark.
Darcy Moore
While he didn't quite kick five goals, I think there was a lot to like about his performance. His second efforts certainly stand out and he's strong on the lead, takes it right out in front, and being so athletic he's already very hard to defend against if he can lead into space. I think his issue is experience; unlike Fas, he wasn't commanding the ball in space, he's not presenting as a target up the field yet, and that'll take time of course, but he's got the early signs of a dangerous forward.
Matt Scharenberg
I thought his composure and confidence in his ability grew as the game went on. He started with a few errors, the worst of which having a free kick on the D50 line, handpassing to Pendlebury under the pump, causing a turnover, when he had Toovey on his own just up the ground. He did some impressive things later on, quick, silky hands, even sidestepped a would-be smotherer. Good signs.
Brayden Maynard
His ball use wasn't as clean as it can be. He missed targets coming out of defence, but tackled well and has a good physical presence in those contested situations.
Sam Dwyer
I didn't like Dwyer's game. He's a weak tackler, he's pushed off it too easily and he cost us a few shots on goal. I already mentioned one, but another was when he was running into the forward 50, makes a hospital handpass to Crisp when Grundy was on his own in the goal square. For someone who's purportedly selected for ball use and composure this isn't good enough.
Marley Williams
He had a quiet game, didn't win as much ball as he has in recent weeks. Wasn't winning the contests, seemed to be getting on the outside and driving us forward. Not sure his disposal is suited to this; he struggles to kick to advantage consistently.
Paul Seedsman
Passenger. I only noticing him once, and that was dropping a mark.
Jamie Elliott
Didn't have the chance to do much, wasn't particularly clean with what he did. Only 2 of his 8 disposals were effective. Would've liked a full game from him today.
Alan Toovey
Applies to all of our 'negating' defenders: for a side that seems incapable of employing a team defense when the opponent gets a quick rebound, your negating defenders must do better than that one on one. From every 10 inside 50s, Melbourne goaled from 3 of them, which is close to double their season average.
Nathan Brown
His disposal continues to be a worry, seems incapable of kicking to advantage coming out of defense, and I noticed several times he'd handpass to an opponent under duress.
Jack Frost
Was probably our worst. He's picked up a pernicious habit of starting too far behind his opponent, which has cost us goals in the last few weeks. There was some disgraceful defending from him today in the first quarter: Frost is on Watts, who bursts forward to gather a ball and deliver a goal assisting handpass, while Frost casually jogs behind. Wouldn't mind seeing him sent to the twos for a bit.
I'm dubious about the efficacy of any structures that we could've implemented yesterday. There simply isn't a structure or gameplan you can employ with any success when a) your F50 entries aren't to advantage and b) your forwards aren't demanding the ball to be put to advantage. This is supported by the statistics: a season average 27.4 disposals per goal compared to 51.4 today. Goaled from 12% of our forward entries, compared to 25% for the season. These stats highlight how poor our ball use was. Conversely, Melbournes DPG and F50 efficiency much higher than their season average. There's no structure that accounts for poor ball use around the ground and out of defense.
Wasteful would be the word I'd use to describe the first term. Going forward we didn't have the composure or the awareness to put the ball into space; too many entries were a low-percentage bomb deep to a contest when there was a shorter pass on.
Fasolo seemed to be the only forward who was prepared to lead into the space, and was our most threatening target early in the match. There was a good little passage there in the first where Greenwood dropped it into a hole in Melbourne's defense and Fas ran onto it. But the problem was, two of his marks->shots on goal were just behinds.
We broke through their defense on a few occasions in the first, and each time, we either weren't prepared to retain possession until something better opened up, or we'd use it inefficiently.
1. Clean gather from Sidebottom, pass to DeGoey racing up the centre square line, he has Moore running ahead of him, who could double back into the space, or he has Fasolo running alongside him. He makes an errant handpass to Fasolo, who has to stop to collect, and it turns into a stoppage.
2. Won a contest on D50, burst forward through Sidebottom, got it to Varcoe on the forward flank. What happened next was confusing. Varcoe handpassed to Dwyer, who, instead of having a shot, passes to the wrong side of our forward there, ie, to the Melbourne advantage. Varcoe should've centred it.
In the second term in particular, unless Melbourne were able to move it quickly from a turnover and kick it long , I thought our zone really locked them down. They were a couple of terrible instances of them slicing us up through the middle. The problem is when they win a contest on one side they'll switch the ball quickly to the opposite flank and run forward. We just don't seem to be quick enough to implement any sort of zone or fill the hole at all.
When they had to move the ball slowly they were pushed up the boundary and had trouble finding targets from there. To prove this, you'd have a look at Greenwood intercepting a kick from Gawn and finding Varcoe loose in the forward 50, as well as Dwyer chopping one off, handpassing to the running Crisp, but Crisp kicked to Adams 1v1 instead of a lone Pendlebury.
We had a good burst in the third, but fell away in the last. I think we had 9? effective kicks in the last quarter. On top of that, we just lost all sense of composure. Even 5 minutes into the quarter, two consecutive kickins were long and up the guts, and when we'd win the contested ball from the kick-in Adams and De Goey would bomb it as far forward as they could to be swept up by the loose Melbourne were playing behind the ball. The ball would just come right back in.
Our centre clearance ascendancy was nullified by Melbourne's loose, and with an undersized defense that just inflates the number of forward entries without reward. We just didn't look like scoring. All composure seemed to vanish and we were casually jogging into position.
Player Review
Best on ground. I don't think Swan's output is a good reflection of his ability. Particularly last week, he would outbody and accelerate past his opponent at the centre clearances on multiple times, but our ruckmen weren't able to put it to his advantage. Much of the same story this week, which was a shame. He still found plenty of the ball, uses his experience to get into the damaging positions on the outside at a contested ball, very much like a Sam Mitchell from Hawthorn.
Levi Greenwood
Thought he was one of our best. His physicality was very important on a day where we lost a few of the hitouts; he was able to halve contests and prevent a Melbourne break. 9 tackles says it all. He reads the play well in a centre clearance situation, and he has the physical strength to block and outbody. He made a few good forward passes that stood out to me, there was one put into space before Moore that would've been impossible to defend against, in addition to the Fasolo one aforementioned.
Taylor Adams
Similar to Greenwood around the clearances, but Adams kicking wasn't much yesterday. He'd win centre clearances, but I struggle to recall a kick that created a really menacing, effective forward entry.
His kicking wasn't great around the ground either. See below:
Instead of dropping it into space in front of that leading Pie, he centres it to Greenwood. And while it works out okay in the end, it works out because Melbourne leave a hole in their defense for Fas to lead into. A better team would've closed that down and Greenwood would've been shooting from 55m, or putting it high to the square.
Scott Pendlebury
Had a shaky start, fumbled on a few occasions and missed a critical tackle. Melbourne were clearly targeting him, he was being tackled and dumped as soon as he got it. I'm not sure he handled it well. His roving was good, as usual, but he didn't find enough of the ball and create enough play to atone for his mistakes.
Tom Langdon
His kickin work was poor. Two of the earliest kick-ins he clearly took the wrong option, Melbourne goals resulting from both. First instance below:
Has the man just 45 degrees to the right, then the target long on the wing there can lead inwards, but instead he elects to kick to a two on two were Melbourne players are in better position to get there first.
Has much the same play on the next kick-in and elects to take it:
...Except he puts too much height on the kick to the target coming down the right, it gets spoilt, and Melbourne goal.
When you're struggling to score and you cough up easy goals like this, it's crushing to team morale.
Travis Varcoe
When we started to hit the scoreboard in the second, it was Varcoe making things happen. Has the most awareness to sneak forward into dangerous positions and hurt the opposition. Is a constant feature of running rebound, tackles hard as always. Ball use wasn't as clean as I've come to expect, though. In the second term, Fasolo wins a one-on-one contest forward of centre, puts inside 50 to Varcoe, who misses a pass to De Goey. Noticed a few times he had a shorter pass on when he went high to the square.
Jordan DeGoey
Thought he was a bit flat. He struggled to get into the game after half-time and his ball use left much to be desired.
Steele Sidebottom
On fire early, was involved with a lot of play, had 21 touches to half-time. Got some clean gathers off the ground that I think I mentioned, when we looked dangerous running forward early it was often Sidebottom engineering the play. Was close to BoG for us early, I'd say, was able to get into those important outside positions to receive a contested ball.
He only had the 5 touches after that though, Melbourne moved Cross onto him in a lockdown role and all that outside ball dried up for him.
He took a really good mark inside 50 though.
Jack Crisp
He was good. Generated a lot of run, got plenty of the ball, drove us inside 50 six times.
Grundy and Witts
We were well-beaten in the hitouts until Gawn visibly began to tire. Was pretty disappointed with Witts in particular; when he does win a tap, it's not really to anybody's advantage. Swan does some great work in the centre bounces and Witts wastes a lot of his efforts. And when you have the opposition number having a real influence in the contested marking stakes, for Witts to take zero just isn't good enough. Didn't notice Grundy a great deal around the ground, but he made some effective taps. I'm no ruck expert, but I think he jumps too early in the centre.
Alex Fasolo
As discussed earlier, was the shining light forward early. Had the opportunity to kick a bag if he'd kicked straight; 3 goals is a good return. His forward pressure was good, I don't recall him doing anything wrong apart from missing some shots. Very strong overhead mark.
Darcy Moore
While he didn't quite kick five goals, I think there was a lot to like about his performance. His second efforts certainly stand out and he's strong on the lead, takes it right out in front, and being so athletic he's already very hard to defend against if he can lead into space. I think his issue is experience; unlike Fas, he wasn't commanding the ball in space, he's not presenting as a target up the field yet, and that'll take time of course, but he's got the early signs of a dangerous forward.
Matt Scharenberg
I thought his composure and confidence in his ability grew as the game went on. He started with a few errors, the worst of which having a free kick on the D50 line, handpassing to Pendlebury under the pump, causing a turnover, when he had Toovey on his own just up the ground. He did some impressive things later on, quick, silky hands, even sidestepped a would-be smotherer. Good signs.
Brayden Maynard
His ball use wasn't as clean as it can be. He missed targets coming out of defence, but tackled well and has a good physical presence in those contested situations.
Sam Dwyer
I didn't like Dwyer's game. He's a weak tackler, he's pushed off it too easily and he cost us a few shots on goal. I already mentioned one, but another was when he was running into the forward 50, makes a hospital handpass to Crisp when Grundy was on his own in the goal square. For someone who's purportedly selected for ball use and composure this isn't good enough.
Marley Williams
He had a quiet game, didn't win as much ball as he has in recent weeks. Wasn't winning the contests, seemed to be getting on the outside and driving us forward. Not sure his disposal is suited to this; he struggles to kick to advantage consistently.
Paul Seedsman
Passenger. I only noticing him once, and that was dropping a mark.
Jamie Elliott
Didn't have the chance to do much, wasn't particularly clean with what he did. Only 2 of his 8 disposals were effective. Would've liked a full game from him today.
Alan Toovey
Applies to all of our 'negating' defenders: for a side that seems incapable of employing a team defense when the opponent gets a quick rebound, your negating defenders must do better than that one on one. From every 10 inside 50s, Melbourne goaled from 3 of them, which is close to double their season average.
Nathan Brown
His disposal continues to be a worry, seems incapable of kicking to advantage coming out of defense, and I noticed several times he'd handpass to an opponent under duress.
Jack Frost
Was probably our worst. He's picked up a pernicious habit of starting too far behind his opponent, which has cost us goals in the last few weeks. There was some disgraceful defending from him today in the first quarter: Frost is on Watts, who bursts forward to gather a ball and deliver a goal assisting handpass, while Frost casually jogs behind. Wouldn't mind seeing him sent to the twos for a bit.
Summary
I'm dubious about the efficacy of any structures that we could've implemented yesterday. There simply isn't a structure or gameplan you can employ with any success when a) your F50 entries aren't to advantage and b) your forwards aren't demanding the ball to be put to advantage. This is supported by the statistics: a season average 27.4 disposals per goal compared to 51.4 today. Goaled from 12% of our forward entries, compared to 25% for the season. These stats highlight how poor our ball use was. Conversely, Melbournes DPG and F50 efficiency much higher than their season average. There's no structure that accounts for poor ball use around the ground and out of defense.
Last edited:
