2019 Training Reports

[Scham]

Ibbo was a far better match up for Gunston than anyone else on our list at e time. May not have been the quality of Gunston but he would halved plenty of contests that Gunston won outright.

Gunston would’ve slaughtered him 1 v 1. Far too clever.

 

[FD2646]

I believe Hugh Dixon and Tabs have put in a good showing.....3 goals each?

 

[sherrif]

Match report
I only saw 40minutes ish of play after coming from work.Most of this information is repeating what was told to me so take that for what it is.

Spoke to a few there who said Tabs was dominant and kicked 4 before I started watching.
Dixon kicked some good goals (at least three maybe 4) as well matched up on watson. Great mark.
Hogan kicked two looked great but was rested quite a bit.
Shultz and Swita were both great. Swita looked like he had a bit of cramp at one point, but seemed fine.
Cox didnt impress as a defender. Got beaten on the lead a few times. Did alright as a forward. Im still not sold he'll be a good defender at afl level. Totally sold he'll be a very good forward.
Colyer impressed with great skills and speed.
Despite conceding goals I still think there is plenty to work with in Watson. He has terrific skills from what Ive seen.
Logue did well defensively, but didnt get a lot of the ball.
Giro's kicking looked much improved.
Banfield and Hughes looked to have improved significantly if the early signs of a intra club count for anything. Banfield has put everything into this preseason. He spent time between half forward and onabll from what I can tell. Took a few good high marks in the limited play I saw. Its a small club I know so no probs with anyone who disagrees, but im in the Hughes over Duman club, which consists of myself and Hughes' direct family members. I still think Duman has some athletic limitations, but hope he exceeds my expectations and proves me wrong. A confident motivated Hughes still has a heap to offer in my view. Took the game on a couple of time in the play I saw.
Bewley and Tucker seemed to have a great duel. Bewley probably had the better of Darcy and kicked a terrific 55 metre goal to win the game for his side(by a point) just before the siren.
Walters was great at driving up anxiety levels of the freo fans watching. In a good way if that makes sense, he simply cant help himself from competing doing some great smothers or team plays. Personally would prefer he took it a bit easier, but gotta love his effort.
Lobb dropped a few marks and could have kicked a bag. You cant help get the impression that at least now when we kick it long to the forward line it will be much harder for opposition defenders to outmark our forwards with Rory there.

 

[theGav56]

Banfield and Hughes looked to have improved significantly if the early signs of a intra club count for anything. Banfield has put everything in this preseason. He spent time between half forward and onabll from what I can tell. Took a few good high marks in the limited play I saw. Its a small club I know so no probs with anyone who disagrees but im in the Hughes over Duman club, which consists of myself and Hughes' direct family members.

Banfield is best 22 isn't he? I mean, not locked in, but given his great first year, his sheer determination, his size and fantastic off-season, his willingness to get a bit dirty.

The question for me about Hughes is the same as the one about Duman; can they play other roles, or are they only defenders? If either of them can find themselves a decent second job in the team, then that becomes very interesting.

 

[sherrif]

Banfield is best 22 isn't he? I mean, not locked in, but given his great first year, his sheer determination, his size and fantastic off-season, his willingness to get a bit dirty.

The question for me about Hughes is the same as the one about Duman; can they play other roles, or are they only defenders? If either of them can find themselves a decent second job in the team, then that becomes very interesting.

I dont mind you commenting on anything I post in the slightest, but Ill repsond with my view if its a response to a post I make and that is in this case a view that Its really an obvious observation that we've played seven defenders on the ground a lot in recent years. Its obvious because we have regulalry lined up with five forwards and seven players behind the ball at bounce downs. At times we've had two wingman and one other player outside the square in midfield roles. But for the majority of the time its been seven defenders. Both Hughes or Duman dont need to develop the ability to play other positions to be in the team. Even if we play a six defender structure, we will still need six pure defenders and two players filling the gaps when any of those six are on the bench with 30-40% game time in defence for the the likes of Conca and Cerra. Either that or we'll need 5 defenders and 4 players rotating through half back.

 

[SHill Shall]

I dont mind you responding to anything I post, but Ill repsond with my view and that is that Its really an obvious observation that we've played seven defenders on the ground a lot in recent years. Its obvious because we have regulalry lined up with five forwards and seven players behind the ball at bounce downs. At times we've had two wingman and one other player outside the square in midfield roles. But for the majority of the time its been seven defenders. Both Hughes or Duman dont need to develop the ability to play other positiions. Even if we play a six defender structure, well still need six pure defenders and two players filling the gaps when any of thsoe six are on the bench with 30-40% game time in defence for the the likes of Conca and Cerra. Either that or we'll need 5 defenders and 4 players rotating through half back.

Err - perhaps not. 5 with 2 rotating 50/50 would give us 6 defenders.

 

[FreoRicci]

Match report
I only saw 40minutes ish of play after coming from work.Most of this information is repeating what was told to me so take that for what it is.

Spoke to a few there who said Tabs was dominant and kicked 4 before I started watching.
Dixon kicked some good goals (at least three maybe 4) as well matched up on watson. Great mark.
Hogan kicked two looked great but was rested quite a bit.
Shultz and Swita were both great. Swita looked like he had a bit of cramp at one point, but seemed fine.
Cox didnt impress as a defender. Got beaten on the lead a few times. Did alright as a forward. Im still not sold he'll be a good defender at afl level. Totally sold he'll be a very good forward.
Colyer impressed with great skills and speed.
Despite conceding goals I still think there is plenty to work with in Watson. He has terrific skills from what Ive seen.
Logue did well defensively, but didnt get a lot of the ball.
Giro's kicking looked much improved.
Banfield and Hughes looked to have improved significantly if the early signs of a intra club count for anything. Banfield has put everything into this preseason. He spent time between half forward and onabll from what I can tell. Took a few good high marks in the limited play I saw. Its a small club I know so no probs with anyone who disagrees but im in the Hughes over Duman club, which consists of myself and Hughes' direct family members. I still think Duman has some athletic limitations, but hope he exceeds my expectations and proves me wrong. A confident motivated Hughes still has a heap to offer in my view. Took the game on a couple of time in the play I saw.
Bewley and Tucker seemed to have a great duel. Bewley probably had the better of Darcy and kicked a terrific 55 metre goal to win the game for his side(by a point) just before the siren.
Walters was great at driving up anxiety levels of the freo fans watching. In a good way if that makes sense, he simply cant himself from competing doing some great smothers or team plays. Personally would prefer he took it a bit easier, but gotta love his effort.
Lobb dropped a few marks and could have kicked a bag. You cant help get the impression that at least now when we kick it long to the forward line it will be much harder for opposition defender to outmark our forwards with Rory there.

Great summation, thanks.
Agree with Hughes. Once his confidence and form is up, he can be capable of playing the loose man role. Great hands and can kick. Give him a chance and he ll take it. But can take a while to get going, which Ross can get irritated at.

 

[Nothing]

I dont mind you commenting on anything I post in the slightest, but Ill repsond with my view if its a response to a post I make and that is in this case a view that Its really an obvious observation that we've played seven defenders on the ground a lot in recent years. Its obvious because we have regulalry lined up with five forwards and seven players behind the ball at bounce downs. At times we've had two wingman and one other player outside the square in midfield roles. But for the majority of the time its been seven defenders. Both Hughes or Duman dont need to develop the ability to play other positions to be in the team. Even if we play a six defender structure, we will still need six pure defenders and two players filling the gaps when any of those six are on the bench with 30-40% game time in defence for the the likes of Conca and Cerra. Either that or we'll need 5 defenders and 4 players rotating through half back.

In relation to the 7 defenders, this article has the percentages of starting formations from last season. We started 7(def)-6-5 almost half the time, with ~25% in 6-6-6.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-19/why-666-rule-could-force-tigers-into-a-radical-shakeup

 

[sherrif]

Err - perhaps not. 5 with 2 rotating 50/50 would give us 6 defenders.

You realize your view above is based on the maths players play 100% of gametime on the ground. They dont. Look at any game. Most small defenders spend between 80-85% on the ground and most tall defenders 90% or slighly less. If you play six dfenders that still leaves a minimum of between 75%-90% of game time to be covered by rotating players through defence. You can click on advanced stats in the match centre on afl.com.au to see that. Here's an example below.
https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2018/21/fre-v-carl

 

[sherrif]

In relation to the 7 defenders, this article has the percentages of starting formations from last season. We started 7(def)-6-5 almost half the time, with ~25% in 6-6-6.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-19/why-666-rule-could-force-tigers-into-a-radical-shakeup

Yep. That's my point so thanks for info. I thought we played 7-6-5 slightly more but it still shows what I was pointing out. There was pretty much always at least seven defenders in the team last year. When we went 6-6-6 last year it was when a defender was rotated on the bench.

 

[sherrif]

Great summation, thanks.
Agree with Hughes. Once his confidence and form is up, he can be capable of playing the loose man role. Great hands and can kick. Give him a chance and he ll take it. But can take a while to get going, which Ross can get irritated at.

Back to the match reports. If today is anything to go by we wont be playing a loose man this year. It was man on man all over the ground as far as I could tell. If Hughes can develop then Id love the flexibility he brings in terms of matching up on players. Id love to see him matched on the oppositions slowest small forward and then have him run off whenever we gain the ball using his terrific speed.

 

[SHill Shall]

You realize your view above is based on the maths players play 100% of gametime on the ground. They dont. Look at any game. Most small defenders spend between 80-85% on the ground and most tall defenders 90% or slighly less. If you play six dfenders that still leaves a minimum of between 75%-90% of game time to be covered by rotating players through defence. You can click on advanced stats in the match centre on afl.com.au to see that. Here's an example below.
https://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2018/21/fre-v-carl

Using your logic, 7 players playing an average of 85% game time could cover 6 defence spots. Certainly not a need for 9.

In the actual game you put stats up for, Pearce played the whole game and 6 other defenders rolled though at an average of around 85% game time. 7 seemed to do the trick.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

The boys have a 4 day weekend and a few boys are down south to watch Rufus. Pearce, Blakely, Colyer and Dardy McCrafty there and Dardy’s eyes wider than saucepans chewing his face off while wearing a white turtleneck. FFS.

 

[ilikepotatoes]

The boys have a 4 day weekend and a few boys are down south to watch Rufus. Pearce, Blakely, Colyer and Dardy McCrafty there and Dardy’s eyes wider than saucepans chewing his face off while wearing a white turtleneck. FFS.

A white turtleneck is very concerning.

Apparently Hogan's continuing his fine off-season at rottnest

 

[M_rash]

The boys have a 4 day weekend and a few boys are down south to watch Rufus. Pearce, Blakely, Colyer and Dardy McCrafty there and Dardy’s eyes wider than saucepans chewing his face off while wearing a white turtleneck. FFS.

Connor double parked on the UDLs. Solid work for a bloke in rehab. Cams fashion sense is criminal. Le crew is on indeed

 

[DeanS]

What or who is a Rufus?

 

[sherrif]

Using your logic, 7 players playing an average of 85% game time could cover 6 defence spots. Certainly not a need for 9.

In the actual game you put stats up for, Pearce played the whole game and 6 other defenders rolled though at an average of around 85% game time. 7 seemed to do the trick.

The example I responded to was using 5 defenders with two players spending 50/50 not 7 pure defenders. Seven would work if we play six defenders on the field (last year we had 7 on the field a lot) and their minutes average 85%ish.

You realize all Im saying is the point that if you have a player like Ryan (77%) in that game goes to the bench he has to be replaced by someone in defence. Hence the need for a couple of players rotating.

 

[wayToGo_]

You realize all Im saying is the simple point that if you have a player like Ryan (77%) in that game go to the bench he has to be replaced by someone in defence. If we're playing six defenders on the filed all that means is that a player has to rotate into defence. Hence the need for a couple of players to spend some time in defence other than the starting six defenders. The example I responded to was using 5 defenders with two players spending 50/50, which doesnt work. Seven would work if we play six defenders on the field and their minutes average 85%, but not if we play seven on the field like we did a lot last year.

Think it depends if you rotate 2, 3 or more midfielders in though plus whether they play 50/50 or far more (think if you ran the numbers you'd rarely find anyone who splits their time equally between defence and midfield). For instance in Rd 2 v Essendon we had Pearce (97%), Hamling (95%), Johnson (86%), Wilson (82%), Ryan (80%) - that averages out to 88% for the 5 positions filled by 5 defenders (ie totalling 60% of a position for rest). Then we had SHill (84%) and Blakely (76%) as the two mid/defs and both didn't rotate into the midfield because we didn't need them to. Could be a coincidence but that totals exactly 100% TOG for 6 positions covered by 7 players. I bring up that game because I still think we held the best structure we have in the past 3 years - and I would be surprised if we didn't go 6-6-6 for most of that game (I haven't checked btw).

Later in the season we put in Cerra as well plus some others but Blakely and SHill still played defence almost exclusively when fit, and other times we had 6 defenders (eg add one of Hughes, Nyhuis, Duman etc) especially so when either Blakely or SHill were out. I think the question is not so much playing midfielders in defence but more who are the best 7 or so players who give us the right mix down back? Whether we classify them as defs or mid/defs is somewhat irrelevant (other than mid/defs you'd expect to be good rebounders and defs good defensively). Their versatility to go into the midfield would be another factor in the decision of who to play in the back line but not in isolation. I think we have in the past and will continue to pick the 7 players who will create a strong unified back line, irrespective of the classification of the individuals in it. I think if you pick more than 7 of the 22 for the back line then you move away from an optimal 6-6-6 structure - that's not to say any of the other 15 players aren't capable of playing down back in case of injury etc.

 

[Taylor]

I'm curious to see how many midfielders end up in the back fifty to start because I've thought their most valuable contribution back there is to be the 7th extra who is used to move it forward, rather than a player who is absolutely in a one on one somewhere back there at the bounce.

 

[Dale147]

What or who is a Rufus?

Good question

 

[sherrif]

Think it depends if you rotate 2, 3 or more midfielders in though plus whether they play 50/50 or far more (think if you ran the numbers you'd rarely find anyone who splits their time equally between defence and midfield). For instance in Rd 2 v Essendon we had Pearce (97%), Hamling (95%), Johnson (86%), Wilson (82%), Ryan (80%) - that averages out to 88% for the 5 positions filled by 5 defenders (ie totalling 60% of a position for rest). Then we had SHill (84%) and Blakely (76%) as the two mid/defs and both didn't rotate into the midfield because we didn't need them to. Could be a coincidence but that totals exactly 100% TOG for 6 positions covered by 7 players. I bring up that game because I still think we held the best structure we have in the past 3 years - and I would be surprised if we didn't go 6-6-6 for most of that game (I haven't checked btw).

Later in the season we put in Cerra as well plus some others but Blakely and SHill still played defence almost exclusively when fit, and other times we had 6 defenders (eg add one of Hughes, Nyhuis, Duman etc) especially so when either Blakely or SHill were out. I think the question is not so much playing midfielders in defence but more who are the best 7 or so players who give us the right mix down back? Whether we classify them as defs or mid/defs is somewhat irrelevant (other than mid/defs you'd expect to be good rebounders and defs good defensively). Their versatility to go into the midfield would be another factor in the decision of who to play in the back line but not in isolation. I think we have in the past and will continue to pick the 7 players who will create a strong unified back line, irrespective of the classification of the individuals in it. I think if you pick more than 7 of the 22 for the back line then you move away from an optimal 6-6-6 structure - that's not to say any of the other 15 players aren't capable of playing down back in case of injury etc.

Im pretty sure we are saying the same thing in different ways. Simply put, we need cover for rotations whether its seven defenders or a few mids covering for interchanges, with the mids having to be good defenders in their own right.

Going back to the scratch match. IT was interesting to see Walters playing midfield and looking great. If that continues (Walters playing predominately mid) that could force changes in roles for other players. Conca and Cerra could end up spending more time back and less mid for example. Im also confident Banfield has something to offer in the midfield (while playing mostly half forward) in terms of a big body and a negator.

 

[Superkoops]

Good question

Alternative Dance/ Chill music group.

In what world is a turtle neck acceptable and that bum belt thing over the shoulder.

Is that Trav Colyer’s partner in the picture?When he originally came back to Perth she stayed in Melbourne - should see a pick up in his form if that scenario has changed.

Good on em - enjoying some cool music with UDL’s. But Dardy’s fashion sense best let that slip thru to the keeper.

 

[BleedPurple]

Alternative Dance/ Chill music group.

In what world is a turtle neck acceptable and that bum belt thing over the shoulder.

Is that Trav Colyer’s partner in the picture?When he originally came back to Perth she stayed in Melbourne - should see a pick up in his form if that scenario has changed.

Good on em - enjoying some cool music with UDL’s. But Dardy’s fashion sense best let that slip thru to the keeper.

Nah it is Cam’s girlfriend

 

[Scham]

Looks like AP’s having a coffee. What’s Colyer drinking?

 

[Daddoo]

Going back to the scratch match. Im also confident Banfield has something to offer in the midfield (while playing mostly half forward) in terms of a big body and a negator.

I went back and watched Banners highlights from the JLT last year. (Video posted in the JLT2: Freo vs Eagles thread by twst88 pg 37). I had completely forgot he played that pressure forward role. Anyway he Looked fast as hell and had a great nose for the ball. If he’s bigger this year and still has those wheels I could see why Ross is trying him at HF. Could be a perfect position for him and help keep the ball in our side of the field more this year. His relentless pressure would a benefit over Walters. He’ll make Those opp defenders mighty nervous after smashing them over and over. Force them to get rid of the ball faster and hopefully force some rushed kicks. Fyfey intercepts. Handballs to Walters who serves it i50 to Hogan for the goal. That simple really. [emoji13]


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app