First up I’ll warn you all that this is a long post...
We are all disappointed, angry and frustrated. So many expectations were held prior to this season and yet it is already over only one quarter the way in.
Most alarmingly the overall performance of the team has declined from last year and is playing some truly awful football – the record of 1-5 is not a case of being unlucky, it is deserved.
So the question must be asked – why has the team regressed since last year with the same group of players that was heavily touted to be amongst the best improvers for 2010?
Before attempting to answer that question, I will list down what I believe to be some strengths and weaknesses of the current squad:
Strengths:
• Arguably the best ruck combination in the competition
• A genuinely talented key forward option in Josh Kennedy
• Mark LeCras is arguably the best medium-sized forward in the competition
• Shannon Hurn has arguably the greatest penetration of any A-grade kick in the competition
Weaknesses:
• Aside from Kerr, the team has no proven consistent ball-winners with quality disposal
• There is a distinct lack of players with the ability to run and carry the ball at speed
• Quality key defensive options are lacking – Glass is still the best option at full back despite having no pace at all off the mark.
• After Kennedy, there are no key forward options that are currently up to AFL standard.
• Complete lack of a genuine crumbing presence up forward.
• An inability to nullify damaging opposition on-ballers.
So with the expectation that one would play to their strengths and try to limit their weaknesses one could anticipate that the Eagles would play a very open forward line to provide space and isolate Kennedy and LeCras in one-on-one situations whilst players push back into the midfield and backline in an attempt to address the deficiencies there.
Essentially a “Sydney”-style game plan blocking the game up in the centre and utilising the ruck advantage at stoppages to counter-attack to the open forward line.
However as we are all aware, this is not the case and West Coast do not utilise such a gameplan. Instead the team plays a very high defensive zone on the attacking fifty metre arc and attempts to employ a running game with an emphasis on moving the ball by hand.
With respect to the coaching staff this gameplan is pointless and plays to the weaknesses of the current team whilst neutralising its strengths.
The high zone effectively removes space for the forwards to operate in and costs soft opposition goals once it is breached. Whilst the prominence of moving the ball via hand up the ground takes away from making use of Hurn’s penetration by foot and places a greater emphasis upon those with suspect disposal. It is a tactical recipe for disaster – and that is not even taking into account the extra workload that is required to deploy a zone so far up the ground for an entire match, which in my opinion is the chief reason why we have been overrun in every last quarter so far this season.
So with that in mind what would I say to the coaching staff if given the chance?
1. Throw out the DVD of the 2006 Grand Final
Yes we won. It was a fantastic achievement. But the team of today is not capable of playing the game that was executed by that of 2006. The engine room then was stacked full of players that could not only find the ball, but run and carry it, and then dispose of it with quality to a teammate in a better position. Additionally in Stenglein, Chick and Banfield there were effective options that could be used to shut down the midfield of the opposition. Today neither of these things can be said about the Eagles’ midfield. Currently it is slow, has poor disposal and cannot shut down opponents. It is clearly foolhardy to ask for a similar outcome from it. Take the DVD and put it in the bin along with the tactics employed in it – they have no use in the current team.
2. Whilst you are at it throw out the DVD of the 2008 Grand Final
Yes Hawthorn beat Geelong against the odds. Yes they used a zone. Now I understand zoning in AFL is now a fundamental part of the game, but since this game it appears that the coaching staff have become obsessed with it. A zone is most effective when used by a hard running team with good disposal on a small ground. The Eagles’ are a team with suspect overall disposal and less running capacity through younger players having done less preseasons, whilst playing more than half their games on the largest ground in the competition – hardly a strong contender then to have a gameplan formulated around a zone. The zone has its place, but should not be the foundation of our defensive structures. Take the DVD of the Hawks getting up and bin it.
3. Only two talls up forward
We have one quality tall forward in Kennedy. Rather than trying to give him space, we surround him with spuds who either get in the way of his leads or drag their opponent into the contest. No other team plays three tall forwards in modern AFL – ever. The closest would be Brisbane with Staker (however they have an exceptional circumstance of two elite forwards in Brown and Fevola) and they still get crucified by the opposition off half back. Playing three talls up forward, especially if they are not getting in amongst the goals is ridiculous. It guarantees the opposition half back line will rebound easily, circumventing any zones whilst effectively removing the team of an additional rotational option for the midfield.
4. Only two talls down back
So if every other club is playing just two key forwards, why must we insist on playing three key position backs each game? A resting ruckman is not a natural goalkicker – otherwise he would be a forward and not a ruckman. Additionally a resting ruckman would only be there for short spells before going back into the ruck leaving us with a the mismatch of a key defender on a mobile forward for the majority of the game. If a team were to place the ruckman up forward for longer periods they would get crucified in the ruck as the Eagles are statistically the best hitout team in the league. The resting ruckman up forward is not a major threat to our defence. The team is packed full of tall players – A.Selwood, Waters and Jones are within 5cm of the heights of Glass and Spangher – an additional taller defensive option is not necessary. All it does is expose us against smaller, agile forwards and remove another midfield rotational option from the team.
5. Forget about resting the rucks up forward
In the past a ruckman was able to be effective up forward when rested due to his superior height in one-on-one marking contests. In modern football however we have flooding and zoning and there is no way a ruckman resting up forward will become isolated with space in one-on-one contests. Neither of Cox or Naitanui have marking as their strongpoint so why put them in a situation where they will be in a contest trying to outmark 2-3 opponents? Nor does either one of them know how to lead effectively, or how to create space for their fellow forwards. The forward line is for forwards, ruckmen should only be there if there is a stoppage. Otherwise all they do crowd the forward line for space, when what we need is for it to be opened up. Additionally there are already three talls up forward – with a ruckman there it makes four – and yet we wonder why opposition half back lines accumulate cricket score possessions against us.
6. Get players that are capable of carrying the ball with speed and dispose with accuracy onto the field
Look at some of our midfield line-ups recently: Rosa, Priddis, Embley, Dalziell, A.Selwood – all players whom know how to get the ball but lack the pace to run and carry possession up the ground and have suspect disposal at best. A midfield composed primarily of these players will lose more games than it wins as there will be no clean breakaway clearances from packs with quick, sharp delivery into the forwards. Instead it becomes laborious with disposal under greater pressure, which in turn affects decision-making and execution. Previously, there were pack breakers in Judd and Cousins, and hard running carry players on the outside with good disposal in Braun and Embley (2006 model, not the 2010 version). The current squad is yet to develop any on-ball players capable of breaking away from packs, however Swift and Schuey look to be the most likely. Naitanui is currently our only player that has demonstrated the ability to be able to break out from packs so far this season.
It is the midfielders in the “outside” roles that need to be addressed the most in my opinion however, as these are meant to be the main carry and deliver players in the team. Any players that lack pace or have suspect disposal cannot play this role effectively. Get them out of the midfield and put in players that can run hard with pace and kick accurately to the correct options.
7. Do the coaching staff believe that crumbers are not necessary?
Seriously do they? We have no specialist crumbing forwards ready to come into this team. In fact we only have one specialist small forward in the entire squad in Broome whom currently looks more an AusKick player and is about as ready for AFL football as one too. Weedon and LeCras are both over six foot in height and prefer to mark on the lead or overhead – that is not a crumbing forward. Hams plays as a defender at WAFL level and Neates in the midfield. Surely how hard could it be to trawl through the WAFL, VFL, SANFL and find a mature-aged specialist crumbing forward to rookie-list? They don’t need to be Phil Matera reborn, they just need to be capable enough to fill a role and do what is necessary. Crumbing forwards are meant to be a-dime-a-dozen so why do we not have any? It’s almost as if after the Sampi failure the coaching and recruiting staff don’t seem to want to have anything to do with small forwards.
So considering each of these points how should the current team line-up?
I would like to see something like the following by the end of this season:
FB:..A.Selwood*.........Glass**...............Waters
HB:..Hurn..................Brown....................Butler
C:...Stevenson..........Schuey..............Sheppard
HF:..Ebert................Kennedy.................LeCras
FF:..Hams................McKinley***..........Weedon****
R:...Cox.....................Kerr...................Naitanui
Int:.Swift.........Masten.......Stevens........Priddis
* Potentially elevate Strijk to HB, move Butler to FB line and place A.Selwood to bench in place of Priddis
** Glass likely to retire by the end of this season in my opinion, one of MacKenzie or Schofield to take his place.
*** McKinley currently best available option – possibly Notte in future
**** Dependent upon fitness and form at WAFL level – if not up for selection with the limited options available I’d be tempted to thrown in McGinnity as a “defensive” forward.
If Houlihan returns from injury to his form in 2009 then he would be knocking on the door of getting in this team too.
Lots of running and midfield rotations in that line-up there. Just having that alone would address some of the issues the team has experienced this year being unable to run-out games.
Naitanui on the ball? I think so. He operates best around packs, use him in bursts as a rover. When Cox needs a rest, Naita takes the ruck; when Naita needs a rest one of the midfield rotations takes his place as a rover.
Mitch Brown CHB? I am of the opinion the Brown does not have what it takes to play as a key forward at AFL level. Irrespective of what he may do in the WAFL, at AFL level when up against zones and numbers flooding back to cut off leads, Brown becomes lost and his performance suffers. Now I am not doubting that he has the inherent ability to be a forward, but with no personal offense to Mitch as I may be completely incorrect, but it appears to me that he does not have the sharpest footballing brain going around, which is why he is more suited to being a key defender. Rather than trying to find space and not cut off the leads of teammates up forward, down back all that is required is to “stop player X from getting the ball” which is a much easier concept. He played down back throughout 2009 and proved himself to be a good rebounding CHB in the making – the question should really be why is Brown not playing down back?
No forwards, backs or talls on the bench? Nope they are not needed – everything in modern football is about running and fitness. The greater number of midfield rotations you have, the fitter the team will be at the end of the game. Fitter teams tackle more, chase harder and dispose with greater accuracy than those that are running on empty. Fitter teams win games. The coaching staff should know, West Coast pioneered this type of football when Worsfold took over. Now every club does it, except we haven’t moved on with the times. If a player up front or down back were to become injured during a game, we already have players in the team that are capable of filling the gap in that role – sacrificing midfield rotations to cover for an injury that is unlikely to occur is akin to a dentist decapitating a patient in order to remove a toothache.
Now with that team how would I like to see them play? Hard-running attack off half back football.
Instead of a zone deployed at attacking fifty it would be brought back to defensive fifty. Doing this would help to prevent conceding soft goals on the opposition counter-attack whilst maintaining space for the forwards to operate in. A zone not so high up the ground would also help to conserve the energy of the key midfield runners which is critical in the latter stages of games.
So now reverting back to our original question – why has the team regressed since last year with the same group of players that was heavily touted to be amongst the best improvers for 2010?
In my opinion it comes down overwhelmingly to poor decision making by the coaching staff and employing a tactical strategy that is simply flawed. The players are good enough, but what is being asked of them currently is beyond what they can execute and the coaching staff and selection panel should be held accountable for that.
We have Hawthorn next week. If we lose that then we face a situation where we could realistically be 1-10 at the halfway point of the season with games against St Kilda, Carlton and Geelong in the coming weeks. That scenario would make Worsfold’s position untenable. Should the worst happen with results not improving and Worsfold resigning or being sacked then I believe we should do everything in our power to try and convince Paul Roos to head west.
It sickens me what is happening to this club – we are a complete shambles at the moment. 2008 was terrible but it was to be expected after losing so many key players. Now however we should be improving and making steps towards football in September. Unfortunately the only steps we have taken this year are backwards and we are every bit as bad if not worse for overall performance as we were in 2008. I live in hope that things can be turned around for this club sooner rather than later.
We are all disappointed, angry and frustrated. So many expectations were held prior to this season and yet it is already over only one quarter the way in.
Most alarmingly the overall performance of the team has declined from last year and is playing some truly awful football – the record of 1-5 is not a case of being unlucky, it is deserved.
So the question must be asked – why has the team regressed since last year with the same group of players that was heavily touted to be amongst the best improvers for 2010?
Before attempting to answer that question, I will list down what I believe to be some strengths and weaknesses of the current squad:
Strengths:
• Arguably the best ruck combination in the competition
• A genuinely talented key forward option in Josh Kennedy
• Mark LeCras is arguably the best medium-sized forward in the competition
• Shannon Hurn has arguably the greatest penetration of any A-grade kick in the competition
Weaknesses:
• Aside from Kerr, the team has no proven consistent ball-winners with quality disposal
• There is a distinct lack of players with the ability to run and carry the ball at speed
• Quality key defensive options are lacking – Glass is still the best option at full back despite having no pace at all off the mark.
• After Kennedy, there are no key forward options that are currently up to AFL standard.
• Complete lack of a genuine crumbing presence up forward.
• An inability to nullify damaging opposition on-ballers.
So with the expectation that one would play to their strengths and try to limit their weaknesses one could anticipate that the Eagles would play a very open forward line to provide space and isolate Kennedy and LeCras in one-on-one situations whilst players push back into the midfield and backline in an attempt to address the deficiencies there.
Essentially a “Sydney”-style game plan blocking the game up in the centre and utilising the ruck advantage at stoppages to counter-attack to the open forward line.
However as we are all aware, this is not the case and West Coast do not utilise such a gameplan. Instead the team plays a very high defensive zone on the attacking fifty metre arc and attempts to employ a running game with an emphasis on moving the ball by hand.
With respect to the coaching staff this gameplan is pointless and plays to the weaknesses of the current team whilst neutralising its strengths.
The high zone effectively removes space for the forwards to operate in and costs soft opposition goals once it is breached. Whilst the prominence of moving the ball via hand up the ground takes away from making use of Hurn’s penetration by foot and places a greater emphasis upon those with suspect disposal. It is a tactical recipe for disaster – and that is not even taking into account the extra workload that is required to deploy a zone so far up the ground for an entire match, which in my opinion is the chief reason why we have been overrun in every last quarter so far this season.
So with that in mind what would I say to the coaching staff if given the chance?
1. Throw out the DVD of the 2006 Grand Final
Yes we won. It was a fantastic achievement. But the team of today is not capable of playing the game that was executed by that of 2006. The engine room then was stacked full of players that could not only find the ball, but run and carry it, and then dispose of it with quality to a teammate in a better position. Additionally in Stenglein, Chick and Banfield there were effective options that could be used to shut down the midfield of the opposition. Today neither of these things can be said about the Eagles’ midfield. Currently it is slow, has poor disposal and cannot shut down opponents. It is clearly foolhardy to ask for a similar outcome from it. Take the DVD and put it in the bin along with the tactics employed in it – they have no use in the current team.
2. Whilst you are at it throw out the DVD of the 2008 Grand Final
Yes Hawthorn beat Geelong against the odds. Yes they used a zone. Now I understand zoning in AFL is now a fundamental part of the game, but since this game it appears that the coaching staff have become obsessed with it. A zone is most effective when used by a hard running team with good disposal on a small ground. The Eagles’ are a team with suspect overall disposal and less running capacity through younger players having done less preseasons, whilst playing more than half their games on the largest ground in the competition – hardly a strong contender then to have a gameplan formulated around a zone. The zone has its place, but should not be the foundation of our defensive structures. Take the DVD of the Hawks getting up and bin it.
3. Only two talls up forward
We have one quality tall forward in Kennedy. Rather than trying to give him space, we surround him with spuds who either get in the way of his leads or drag their opponent into the contest. No other team plays three tall forwards in modern AFL – ever. The closest would be Brisbane with Staker (however they have an exceptional circumstance of two elite forwards in Brown and Fevola) and they still get crucified by the opposition off half back. Playing three talls up forward, especially if they are not getting in amongst the goals is ridiculous. It guarantees the opposition half back line will rebound easily, circumventing any zones whilst effectively removing the team of an additional rotational option for the midfield.
4. Only two talls down back
So if every other club is playing just two key forwards, why must we insist on playing three key position backs each game? A resting ruckman is not a natural goalkicker – otherwise he would be a forward and not a ruckman. Additionally a resting ruckman would only be there for short spells before going back into the ruck leaving us with a the mismatch of a key defender on a mobile forward for the majority of the game. If a team were to place the ruckman up forward for longer periods they would get crucified in the ruck as the Eagles are statistically the best hitout team in the league. The resting ruckman up forward is not a major threat to our defence. The team is packed full of tall players – A.Selwood, Waters and Jones are within 5cm of the heights of Glass and Spangher – an additional taller defensive option is not necessary. All it does is expose us against smaller, agile forwards and remove another midfield rotational option from the team.
5. Forget about resting the rucks up forward
In the past a ruckman was able to be effective up forward when rested due to his superior height in one-on-one marking contests. In modern football however we have flooding and zoning and there is no way a ruckman resting up forward will become isolated with space in one-on-one contests. Neither of Cox or Naitanui have marking as their strongpoint so why put them in a situation where they will be in a contest trying to outmark 2-3 opponents? Nor does either one of them know how to lead effectively, or how to create space for their fellow forwards. The forward line is for forwards, ruckmen should only be there if there is a stoppage. Otherwise all they do crowd the forward line for space, when what we need is for it to be opened up. Additionally there are already three talls up forward – with a ruckman there it makes four – and yet we wonder why opposition half back lines accumulate cricket score possessions against us.
6. Get players that are capable of carrying the ball with speed and dispose with accuracy onto the field
Look at some of our midfield line-ups recently: Rosa, Priddis, Embley, Dalziell, A.Selwood – all players whom know how to get the ball but lack the pace to run and carry possession up the ground and have suspect disposal at best. A midfield composed primarily of these players will lose more games than it wins as there will be no clean breakaway clearances from packs with quick, sharp delivery into the forwards. Instead it becomes laborious with disposal under greater pressure, which in turn affects decision-making and execution. Previously, there were pack breakers in Judd and Cousins, and hard running carry players on the outside with good disposal in Braun and Embley (2006 model, not the 2010 version). The current squad is yet to develop any on-ball players capable of breaking away from packs, however Swift and Schuey look to be the most likely. Naitanui is currently our only player that has demonstrated the ability to be able to break out from packs so far this season.
It is the midfielders in the “outside” roles that need to be addressed the most in my opinion however, as these are meant to be the main carry and deliver players in the team. Any players that lack pace or have suspect disposal cannot play this role effectively. Get them out of the midfield and put in players that can run hard with pace and kick accurately to the correct options.
7. Do the coaching staff believe that crumbers are not necessary?
Seriously do they? We have no specialist crumbing forwards ready to come into this team. In fact we only have one specialist small forward in the entire squad in Broome whom currently looks more an AusKick player and is about as ready for AFL football as one too. Weedon and LeCras are both over six foot in height and prefer to mark on the lead or overhead – that is not a crumbing forward. Hams plays as a defender at WAFL level and Neates in the midfield. Surely how hard could it be to trawl through the WAFL, VFL, SANFL and find a mature-aged specialist crumbing forward to rookie-list? They don’t need to be Phil Matera reborn, they just need to be capable enough to fill a role and do what is necessary. Crumbing forwards are meant to be a-dime-a-dozen so why do we not have any? It’s almost as if after the Sampi failure the coaching and recruiting staff don’t seem to want to have anything to do with small forwards.
So considering each of these points how should the current team line-up?
I would like to see something like the following by the end of this season:
FB:..A.Selwood*.........Glass**...............Waters
HB:..Hurn..................Brown....................Butler
C:...Stevenson..........Schuey..............Sheppard
HF:..Ebert................Kennedy.................LeCras
FF:..Hams................McKinley***..........Weedon****
R:...Cox.....................Kerr...................Naitanui
Int:.Swift.........Masten.......Stevens........Priddis
* Potentially elevate Strijk to HB, move Butler to FB line and place A.Selwood to bench in place of Priddis
** Glass likely to retire by the end of this season in my opinion, one of MacKenzie or Schofield to take his place.
*** McKinley currently best available option – possibly Notte in future
**** Dependent upon fitness and form at WAFL level – if not up for selection with the limited options available I’d be tempted to thrown in McGinnity as a “defensive” forward.
If Houlihan returns from injury to his form in 2009 then he would be knocking on the door of getting in this team too.
Lots of running and midfield rotations in that line-up there. Just having that alone would address some of the issues the team has experienced this year being unable to run-out games.
Naitanui on the ball? I think so. He operates best around packs, use him in bursts as a rover. When Cox needs a rest, Naita takes the ruck; when Naita needs a rest one of the midfield rotations takes his place as a rover.
Mitch Brown CHB? I am of the opinion the Brown does not have what it takes to play as a key forward at AFL level. Irrespective of what he may do in the WAFL, at AFL level when up against zones and numbers flooding back to cut off leads, Brown becomes lost and his performance suffers. Now I am not doubting that he has the inherent ability to be a forward, but with no personal offense to Mitch as I may be completely incorrect, but it appears to me that he does not have the sharpest footballing brain going around, which is why he is more suited to being a key defender. Rather than trying to find space and not cut off the leads of teammates up forward, down back all that is required is to “stop player X from getting the ball” which is a much easier concept. He played down back throughout 2009 and proved himself to be a good rebounding CHB in the making – the question should really be why is Brown not playing down back?
No forwards, backs or talls on the bench? Nope they are not needed – everything in modern football is about running and fitness. The greater number of midfield rotations you have, the fitter the team will be at the end of the game. Fitter teams tackle more, chase harder and dispose with greater accuracy than those that are running on empty. Fitter teams win games. The coaching staff should know, West Coast pioneered this type of football when Worsfold took over. Now every club does it, except we haven’t moved on with the times. If a player up front or down back were to become injured during a game, we already have players in the team that are capable of filling the gap in that role – sacrificing midfield rotations to cover for an injury that is unlikely to occur is akin to a dentist decapitating a patient in order to remove a toothache.
Now with that team how would I like to see them play? Hard-running attack off half back football.
Instead of a zone deployed at attacking fifty it would be brought back to defensive fifty. Doing this would help to prevent conceding soft goals on the opposition counter-attack whilst maintaining space for the forwards to operate in. A zone not so high up the ground would also help to conserve the energy of the key midfield runners which is critical in the latter stages of games.
So now reverting back to our original question – why has the team regressed since last year with the same group of players that was heavily touted to be amongst the best improvers for 2010?
In my opinion it comes down overwhelmingly to poor decision making by the coaching staff and employing a tactical strategy that is simply flawed. The players are good enough, but what is being asked of them currently is beyond what they can execute and the coaching staff and selection panel should be held accountable for that.
We have Hawthorn next week. If we lose that then we face a situation where we could realistically be 1-10 at the halfway point of the season with games against St Kilda, Carlton and Geelong in the coming weeks. That scenario would make Worsfold’s position untenable. Should the worst happen with results not improving and Worsfold resigning or being sacked then I believe we should do everything in our power to try and convince Paul Roos to head west.
It sickens me what is happening to this club – we are a complete shambles at the moment. 2008 was terrible but it was to be expected after losing so many key players. Now however we should be improving and making steps towards football in September. Unfortunately the only steps we have taken this year are backwards and we are every bit as bad if not worse for overall performance as we were in 2008. I live in hope that things can be turned around for this club sooner rather than later.
