Opinion We have a work rate problem not a talent problem

[geelong_crazy26]

I am 100% confident that we are close to having enough talent on our list that with the addition of some topping up at the end of the year we can challenge for the premiership. The issue we have is work rate both on and off the field.

The bulk of our players can not run hard both ways for 4 quarters and after quarter time in every game this year our players have not been able to keep up with their direct opponent .We can set up defensive structures up the field but one on one we cant keep up with the opposition and we have too many tackles that are easily broken.

Its not just when the opposition has the ball but when we have the ball as well , not enough players get involved which reduces our options and also means that as soon as we lose possession of the ball the opposition is able to create an effective turnover as we don't have enough numbers around to put much pressure back on.

Bottom line is no matter what game plane we use ,how we structure up or what players we select we can not be a top 4 side until we develop the ability to run hard both way for a FULL GAME. Lets make getting super fit for 2016 our number 1 priority

 

[kickazz]

Looked ok in the first quarter, looked bad in the last.

My first thought is fitness. Either they are not fit enough or aspects of the game plan are too taxing.

 

[SJ]

Any team looks like they have a work-rate problem when they work hard to move the ball down the ground and then BANG! TURNOVER, then the opposition has a far easier task in taking the other way on the counter attack.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I thought our guys worked pretty hard until Norf blew it out in the last quarter. The stats showed our contested possies and tackles were right up there, we won stoppages (not centre clearances though) for most of the game. So work rate was good.

The reason Norf was able to get over us was talent, not work rate. Our midfield is C grade at the moment, and that's why we lost. To me it's more about talent (a lack thereof) than work rate at this stage. But I like an optimist.

 

[geelong_boy]

Only three guys with over 20 possessions (the redoubtable skipper, the old man in the backline, and lazy Motlop) would indicate a talent problem.
We won't even make the finals if the next tier (Caddy, Guthrie, Duncan and GHS) don't consistently get over 20 possessions.

 

[cynical]

some optimists never give up

 

[JUBJUB]

some optimists never give up

and some whingers just never stop

 

[year of the cat]

Nah, we have a talent problem. Line up our midfield against just about everyone elses. Ours would be in the bottom 6 comfortably now.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I thought our guys worked pretty hard until Norf blew it out in the last quarter. The stats showed our contested possies and tackles were right up there, we won stoppages (not centre clearances though) for most of the game. So work rate was good.

The reason Norf was able to get over us was talent, not work rate. Our midfield is C grade at the moment, and that's why we lost. To me it's more about talent (a lack thereof) than work rate at this stage. But I like an optimist.

Only three guys with over 20 possessions (the redoubtable skipper, the old man in the backline, and lazy Motlop) would indicate a talent problem.
We won't even make the finals if the next tier (Caddy, Guthrie, Duncan and GHS) don't consistently get over 20 possessions.

Its hard to get over 20 possession on a regular basis when you cant run hard for 4 quarters

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Any team looks like they have a work-rate problem when they work hard to move the ball down the ground and then BANG! TURNOVER, then the opposition has a far easier task in taking the other way on the counter attack.

Better ball use will come as our players get more experience , I don't think we work hard enough with the ball either .We don't have enough players running hard to get around the ball carrier to link up and we don't have enough players running hard to present short passing options.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Looked ok in the first quarter, looked bad in the last.

My first thought is fitness. Either they are not fit enough or aspects of the game plan are too taxing.

Looked ok in the 1st quarter against Hawthorn
Looked ok in the 1st quarter against Freo
Looked ok in the 1st quarter against North

 

[Jeff76]

Bring back Dank

 

[Teriyakicat]

I thought our guys worked pretty hard until Norf blew it out in the last quarter. The stats showed our contested possies and tackles were right up there, we won stoppages (not centre clearances though) for most of the game. So work rate was good.

The reason Norf was able to get over us was talent, not work rate. Our midfield is C grade at the moment, and that's why we lost. To me it's more about talent (a lack thereof) than work rate at this stage. But I like an optimist.

We lost the contested ball 118-150 (though all but even (28-29 I think) in the last Q) and stoppage clearances 22-29, but won the centre clearances 12-9 and the tackles 68-52, including 16-6 tackles in the last quarter.
Sounds like we had a crack right up until the end but were just not able to complete the task.
Not capitalising on our forward entries was a big let-down and I think that will be the focus of the game plan for the next few weeks. At least, I hope it will be!

 

[Teriyakicat]

Nah, we have a talent problem. Line up our midfield against just about everyone elses. Ours would be on the bottom comfortably now.

FTFY

 

[Biggy_Boy]

FTFY

Well, we are the worst team in the league for contested possessions and clearances.

 

[BUSTER29]

Well, we are the worst team in the league for contested possessions and clearances.

And until we can make some progress in those areas we will continue to get pantsed.

 

[year of the cat]

FTFY

Reckon we have the 'aints covered. Just.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Reckon we have the 'aints covered. Just.

You reckon? Just without taking hitouts into consideration- cbb'ed working that out- we are 5.5 clearances per game behind their midfield and 3 behind the lions, who are 2nd worse at clearances in the comp. Contested possessions- Saints are 5th, with 144 per game, we are 18th, with 128. As a % of total possessions, we'd edge them out, though. That's a win!

 

[Turbocat]

Is it look or actual. We need GPS data the know if we are dropping off...but if we have players running 16 and 18 ks a game , they can not be too unfit.

 

[Hoffy95]

We have a workrate and/or fitness AND a talent problem.

Our kids through to our middle age players are simply not good enough. We as supporters tend to overrate our own cattle. There's no Scarlett, Bartel, Ling, Chapman, Enright, Corey, SJ, Ablett et al coming through among this crop from what I've seen, not even close, so we're a fair way off another tilt at the flag.

Hawks, Port, Freo & Swans are streets ahead of us. I'm OK with that. We've defied the odds being up as long as we have. The system isn't designed for that to be sustainable though.

 

[Lana]

You reckon? Just without taking hitouts into consideration- cbb'ed working that out- we are 5.5 clearances per game behind their midfield and 3 behind the lions, who are 2nd worse at clearances in the comp. Contested possessions- Saints are 5th, with 144 per game, we are 18th, with 128. As a % of total possessions, we'd edge them out, though. That's a win!

There's not much point in using averages only four games into the season if you want to make a comparison between teams, there's just too many things that makes that comparison unreliable. But it is indicative of a problem

 

[Teriyakicat]

There's not much point in using averages only four games into the season if you want to make a comparison between teams, there's just too many things that makes that comparison unreliable. But it is indicative of a problem

True- but why ruin a good story, 10lana?

The opposition we've faced has as much to do with it as anything. If we want a true comparison, we should count each opponent only once and use those adjusted numbers.

 

[tenderwarrior]

Saying that it is just work-rate or inconsistency, not the players or their talent is a cop-out in my opinion. I heard Hardwick try to convince the media in the post-game press conference after the loss to Melbourne that Richmond had the players it needed to win a flag, and it was cringeworthy. I would argue if the players don't work hard enough, they are not the right players, no matter how talented and highly rated they were/are.

They might become the 'right' player, the same way a player works on any deficiency, but a lack of effort is usually harder to overcome than a lack of talent.

 

[THE CAT WRANGLER]

Well, we are the worst team in the league for contested possessions and clearances.

Scott doesn't think so , he wants more data before he admits we have a problem

 

[bulletproof]

I disagree competely and utterly. We have a talent problem. A huge one.